tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35191802015-07-31T20:35:07.146-04:00Betsy's PageBetsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.comBlogger29405125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-42215588313508786552015-07-31T06:04:00.000-04:002015-07-31T06:04:00.101-04:00Cruising the WebThe new framework for the Advanced Placement U.S. History course is out and, of course, College Board submitted it to <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/revised-ap-history-standards-will-emphasize-american-exceptionalism-358210">Newsweek before teachers</a>. We have to wait our copy in the mail. One thing they've done is cut down on the learning objectives from 50 to 19. That's good, because it was ridiculous before. And they've responded to conservative critics by adding more on the Founding and American exceptionalism.<blockquote>http://www.newsweek.com/revised-ap-history-standards-will-emphasize-american-exceptionalism-358210</blockquote>They've tried to eliminate language that critics felt was anti-American or a bias against America. I wouldn't know since teachers haven't been able to see it yet. It's not like we're preparing for school to start in less than two weeks or anything.<br /><br />To tell the truth, I was never all that upset about the objectives and how they were phrased in the first place. It was always clear that there were suggestions on whom to mention and how to teach, but not mandates. I didn't change my content that I taught at all. What was really different is how the essays are graded. They've made some small modifications on the grading rubrics for the essays, but I haven't had time to study them enough to see if this is much of an improvement. I still prefer a holistic grade rather than giving kids points for each part of the rubric recipe that they fulfill, but apparently the holistic horse has left the barn.<br /><br />It's funny, but already on the teacher bulletin board that I read, the teachers are already making fun of having to teach American exceptionalism and having to teach "America's military achievements." I guess that teachers find teaching the barest mention of military history as beneath them, while other topics like social and environmental history are just fine to emphasize. Since I love teaching military history and used to teach a course on American military history, this slight shift is just fine with me.<br /><br /><SCRIPT charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_ssw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fmrsnewspagofh-20%2F8003%2F50900d33-39fc-49e3-baec-ee8265e57a57&Operation=GetScriptTemplate"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT><A HREF="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_ssw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fmrsnewspagofh-20%2F8003%2F50900d33-39fc-49e3-baec-ee8265e57a57&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</A></NOSCRIPT><br /><br />And now I'm leaving for a couple days to visit my daughters before school starts. Have a nice weekend.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-91579664496591117112015-07-30T06:56:00.000-04:002015-07-30T06:56:00.722-04:00Cruising the Web<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072302011.html">Myron Magnet writes about</a> what has happened to New York City under Mayor de Blasio as he describes a couple of random attacks on tourists.<blockquote>A few more incidents like this will stop tourists from coming to Gotham and choke off a rich growth industry, as top cop Bill Bratton recognizes. So while Mayor Bill de Blasio blathers about raising taxes on “the rich” to fight his chimera of inequality (which some days seems like his version of Kryptonite), his heavy anti-cop rhetoric, and the ongoing efforts of his city council allies to decriminalize quality-of-life offenses like fare-beating and public urination, threatens to sweep away many of the unskilled hospitality-industry jobs that the orderly New York of Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg nurtured. Think of de Blasio as the Inequality Grinch who could steal Gotham’s earned prosperity.<br /><br />Take a walk around the Grand Hyatt and neighboring Grand Central Terminal these days. It’s often like stepping out of H.G. Wells’s time machine straight back into the 1970s or 1980s. Vanderbilt Avenue, in particular, is becoming once again the urinal of the universe, with one block wall-to-wall “bum stands,” as my son, with childhood inventiveness, used to call them: the stolen supermarket shopping cart, the garbage bag full of scavenged cans and bottles for redemption, the prone figure wrapped mummy-like in a filthy blanket. The heart sinks. It took so much effort by so many people to clear up the human wreckage that so many years of liberal “compassion” had created in a dying New York. And to see it all—I can’t put it any better than the esteemed <i>New York Post</i>—“pissed away” by a mayor not smart or perceptive enough to have learned one thing from the experience of the last 20 years, since his own personal demons have left him stuck in the politics of the 1950s and 1960s, is tragic. It is so hard to build; so easy to destroy.</blockquote>I guess New Yorkers got what they voted for it. And they're getting it <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke163179.html">"good and hard."</a><br /><br /><SCRIPT charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_ssw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fmrsnewspagofh-20%2F8003%2F50900d33-39fc-49e3-baec-ee8265e57a57&Operation=GetScriptTemplate"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT><A HREF="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_ssw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fmrsnewspagofh-20%2F8003%2F50900d33-39fc-49e3-baec-ee8265e57a57&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</A></NOSCRIPT><br /><br />How many times have we seen <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/los-angeles-unions-exempt-15-dollar-minimum-wage">this sort of hypocrisy from union officials?</a><blockquote>Union officials in Los Angeles are fighting to be excluded from minimum wage rules that they have lobbied to put in place.<br /><br />Los Angeles city council is set to vote on a union-backed clause to its $15-an-hour minimum wage bill that would exempt workers covered by a collective bargaining contract. The debate is expected to start later this week when the council returns from summer recess.<br /><br />In May, the Los Angeles city council voted in favor of raising minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020. As the council prepared for a final vote on the legislation, the Los Angeles Times reported local union leaders had suggested an exemption that was common for such laws: to make companies with unionized workforces exempt from such wage increase.<br /><br />The proposal was made by Rusty Hicks, executive secretary-treasurer at the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. Hicks has been a leading voice for raising the minimum wage. He declined to comment for this story, referring the Guardian to previously released statements when he first introduced the proposal for the exemption clause.</blockquote>This is reminiscent of<a href="In May, the Los Angeles city council voted in favor of raising minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020. As the council prepared for a final vote on the legislation, the Los Angeles Times reported local union leaders had suggested an exemption that was common for such laws: to make companies with unionized workforces exempt from such wage increase. The proposal was made by Rusty Hicks, executive secretary-treasurer at the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. Hicks has been a leading voice for raising the minimum wage. He declined to comment for this story, referring the Guardian to previously released statements when he first introduced the proposal for the exemption clause."> unions hiring non-union people, even the homeless, to protest contractors who don't use union labor.</a> High unemployment rates seems to provide plenty of people to <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Help%2C+Union+Hires+Nonunion+Pickets&oq=Help%2C+Union+Hires+Nonunion+Pickets&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61.1651j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">accept hourly wages to protest employers who don't hire union workers. </a><blockquote>"For a lot of our members, it's really difficult to have them come out, either because of parking or something else," explains Vincente Garcia, a union representative who is supervising the picketing.<br /><br />So instead, the union hires unemployed people at the minimum wage—$8.25 an hour—to walk picket lines. Mr. Raye says he's grateful for the work, even though he's not sure why he's doing it. "I could care less," he says. "I am being paid to march around and sound off."</blockquote><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072302011.html">The Washington Post reported eight years ago that unions were outsourcing their picketing.</a> So hypocrisy has long been a trend among unions.<br /><br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />Hillary Clinton has looked at the economy and<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Hillary+Blames+Business&oq=Hillary+Blames+Business&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.1178j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8"> found the culprit for its sluggishness - businesses and their shareholders.</a><blockquote>But Mrs. Clinton then offered an analysis of this sorry state of affairs that was nearly 100% Obama-free. Aside from a vague reference to the disruptive impact of a government shutdown, the President’s policies were off the hook. Instead, Mrs. Clinton blamed “quarterly capitalism,” in which company shareholders pressure management to return cash to them instead of re-investing it in new factories and workers....</blockquote>She thinks businesses are not investing in expanding their businesses because of pressure from their shareholders to pay out dividends or buy back stocks. She wants to put a stop to that. She really doesn't understand how businesses work.<blockquote>Forget for a moment that Mrs. Clinton doesn’t seem to respect the rights of property owners to manage their properties as they see fit. A significant problem for Americans hoping for economic revival is that for all the time Mrs. Clinton has spent collecting money from Wall Streeters, she still doesn’t understand market incentives.<br /><br />Activist shareholders win some and lose some. When they can convince most of their fellow shareholders that a business has few compelling opportunities to invest its cash flow and that shareholders would be better off investing that cash elsewhere, they win. On the other hand, if most shareholders are confident that management can generate a good return by building more plants and hiring more workers, the activists lose.<br /><br />If the activists are having more success in this era, it means investors are less optimistic about the potential for growing the businesses they own. Is that because managements are suddenly less competent than they used to be, or is this era of slow growth putting a damper on investor expectations?<br /><br />The emerging Clinton strategy is to first ignore the impact of President Obama’s record-setting volumes of federal regulation and his tax hikes on income, investment, health care, and much else. Step two is to pretend that the “new normal” of stagnant wages results from investor demands for returns that have existed for as long as there have been corporations.<br /><br />“I’m looking for new creative, innovative, disruptive ideas that will save capitalism for the 21st century,” said Mrs. Clinton on Friday. How about disrupting just one of the barriers to growth created by Mr. Obama?</blockquote><br />Ah, yes. <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-gets-a-600-hair-cut/article/2569209"> Hillary Clinton, woman of the people.</a><blockquote>Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton locked down part of Bergdorf Goodman, the luxury goods department store, to get a $600 haircut Friday at the posh John Barrett Salon.<br /><br />Clinton, accompanied by a huge entourage, slipped into the Fifth Avenue store through a side door Friday, the New York Daily News reported.<br /><br />The store shut down an elevator bank so the Democrat candidate could ride up alone and enjoy her hair cut in a private area of the salon, a source told the Daily News. "Other customers didn't get a glimpse," said the source.<br /><br />Salon owner John Barrett normally charges $600 for a hair cut and blow-dry, and hair color costs an additional $600. Whether Clinton paid $600 for the haircut remains unknown, as she did not respond for a request comment.</blockquote>Can you imagine if Mitt Romney had done this?<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=offtocollege14&banner=0P58ZNASW9X5YYN8JGG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=3JXOQNUYQPGH45MK" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />The next time Democrats talk about how much they care about veterans who have been neglected by the Department of Veterans Affairs, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-threatens-veto-worried-va-reform-unfair-to-workers/article/2569226">remember where their priorities really are.</a><blockquote>The White House says President Obama will veto legislation that would let the Department of Veterans Affairs fire corrupt or negligent officials, in part because that change would make the VA a less pleasant place to work for federal employees.<br /><br />Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., introduced the VA Accountability Act in response to the VA's failure to hold almost anyone responsible for the VA healthcare scandal, massive cost overruns at new construction projects and other problems.<br /><br />But the White House said in a statement released late Tuesday that Miller's bill would be unfair to the VA, since it would create a "disparity" between VA workers and officials at other government agencies.<br /><br />"It would make conditions of employment in VA significantly less attractive than in other federal agencies or in the private sector, and as a result, would discourage outstanding VA employees from remaining in VA and dramatically impair VA's ability to recruit top talent, including veterans," the White House said in a statement on the bill.<br /><br />The White House says President Obama will veto legislation that would let the Department of Veterans Affairs fire corrupt or negligent officials, in part because that change would make the VA a less pleasant place to work for federal employees.<br /><br />Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., introduced the VA Accountability Act in response to the VA's failure to hold almost anyone responsible for the VA healthcare scandal, massive cost overruns at new construction projects and other problems.<br /><br />But the White House said in a statement released late Tuesday that Miller's bill would be unfair to the VA, since it would create a "disparity" between VA workers and officials at other government agencies.<br /><br />"It would make conditions of employment in VA significantly less attractive than in other federal agencies or in the private sector, and as a result, would discourage outstanding VA employees from remaining in VA and dramatically impair VA's ability to recruit top talent, including veterans," the White House said in a statement on the bill.</blockquote>Just like Democrats protect ineffective teachers from being fired are sticking up for corrupt or ineffective VA employees. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421666/print">Michael Barone ponders </a>our New Victorianism. He notes that thee has been a steady decrease in teens engaged in sex and teen pregnancies.<blockquote>Conservative millennial author Ben Domenech sees these trends as a “triumph of soft conservatism over time,” but also as “another aspect of modern risk aversion.” That latter trend is also apparent in the decline in unsupervised play for children and removal of jungle gyms and slides from playgrounds.<br /><br />A tendency to risk aversion also helps explain the movement against the supposed plague of sexual assaults in colleges and universities, with administrators running kangaroo courts in which the accused (almost always men) are assumed guilty and denied due-process rights. This has been carried, as my Washington Examiner colleague Ashe Schow has documented, to ridiculous extremes.<br /><br />But one can also see it as an updated version of the college rules against male-female sexual contact that were being dismantled as “Hair” was premiering on Broadway. Students, headed to Aquarius then, are subjected to quasi-Victorian restrictions now.<br /><br />California and New York legislators have chimed in with “yes means yes” statutes applicable to students (but not other adults). The American Law Institute is considering a similar approach, which Judith Shulevitz in the New York Times called “the criminalization of what we think of as ordinary sex.”<br /><br />The 1960s saw a sharp decline in birth rates — the end of the baby boom — especially among the highly educated and affluent. But as Charles Murray documented in his 2012 book Coming Apart, the highly educated abandoned Aquarian rates of divorce and extramarital sex in the 1980s, while these rates have remained high among the less educated.<br /><br />Now there’s been a trend since the 1990s toward higher birth rates at relatively late ages, and lower childlessness among highly educated women. And more women with higher educations are deciding the stay at home with children and pause their careers. Queen Victoria, a teen bride and mother of nine (the last at age 37), might approve.<br /><br />Even the legalization and vastly increased approval of same-sex marriage has a Victorian aspect. The early same-sex marriage advocates Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch argued that marriage would domesticate homosexuals. There’s logic to that — marriage inevitably includes elements of restriction and restraint — and we will see how it works out.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/will-the-democratic-party-abandon-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson/399722/">The desire to divorce the Democratic Party </a>from its previous heroes Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson continues. I guess all they have left are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Obama. Their bench is shrinking. <br /><br />Political correctness never ends. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421709/print"> Now we need to warn university students </a>to not use the word "American." We wouldn't want to offend those from South or Central America or Canadians and Mexicans. Geesh! I wonder how many people from all those other countries actually use the word "American" themselves instead of the recommended terms "Resident of the U.S." or "U.s. citizen."<br /><br />A lion gets killed and what is important to report -- <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/29/the-hill-connects-lion-killer-to-mitt-romney/">the hunter's donation to Mitt Romney.</a> Seriously. With all that is going on today, the killing of a lion is the story that has the world's attention? <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/we-live-in-a-world-gone-mad-2.php"> As John Hinderaker writes, </a><blockquote>These are perilous times: Iran is on its way to getting the bomb, Russia is on the march, China’s economy is teetering, the U.S. has a historic election in prospect. So what is the number one news story in the world? Cecil the lion.</blockquote><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ebola-killed-over-9300-people-africa-boko-haram-killed-3750-civilians-last-year_1000832.html">Daniel Halper writes tongue-in-cheek about the lion tragedy.</a><blockquote>t's been a tragic couple years for Africa.<br /><br />The death of Cecil comes on the heels of the tragedy of Ebola and the continuing murderous terror of Boko Haram.<br /><br />Consider Ebola: "More than 23,200 people in Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Sierra Leone have contracted Ebola since March, according to the World Health Organization, making this the biggest outbreak on record. More than 9,300 people have died," the New York Times reported in January of this year.<br /><br />And consider the terrorist group Boko Haram. "During 2014, Human Rights Watch estimates that at least 3,750 civilians died during Boko Haram attacks. .. Attacks in the first quarter of 2015 have increased compared to the same period in 2014, including seven suicide bombings allegedly using women and children."<br /><br />At least the death of Cecil has been getting widespread coverage, especially here in the United States. <br /><br />"[T]he news shows did find more than 14 minutes for a more important story: the “outrage” over the shooting of Cecil, a famed African lion, by an American dentist. Tuesday, the networks spent 5 minutes, 44 seconds during their evening news shows on Cecil -- and that’s not even counting the teasers. Wednesday morning, ABC, NBC and CBS lamented over the lion for 8 minutes, 17 seconds," Newsbusters reports.</blockquote>And, of course, that is a whole lot more attention than the Planned Parenthood or Dr. Gosnell stories.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-74864829450501417702015-07-29T06:56:00.000-04:002015-07-29T06:56:00.117-04:00Cruising the Web<a href="http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/28/what-john-kerry-gets-wrong-about-the-senate-treaties-and-the-iran-deal/">Steven Groves of Heritage explains </a>what John Kerry doesn't understand about what a treaty is and what the role of the Senate is.<blockquote>At a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry was asked why the administration did not submit the Iran nuclear agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent as an Article II treaty.<br /><br />Kerry responded that the agreement wasn’t treated as a treaty “because you can’t pass a treaty anymore.”</blockquote>So, since getting 2/3 of the Senate is difficult and needs consensus, the solution is just to ignore the Constitution. It's no wonder that Kerry would think that. After that is the reason his boss has given for ignoring Congress when it came to changing immigration law. And Kerry's assertion isn't even true. It would just be true of the terrible deal that he negotiated with Iran.<blockquote>So a historically important nonproliferation agreement was created as a measly executive agreement not based on principle or standard practice– but solely for reasons of expedience.<br /><br />This is not a good reason to avoid Senate scrutiny on important international agreements, particularly deeply flawed agreements such as the Iran nuclear deal.<br /><br />Indeed, if the Iran nuclear deal was palatable, it may have sailed through the Senate since most senators, including the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, prefer diplomatic solutions to war.<br /><br />Moreover, during the administration of George W. Bush, the Senate managed to give its consent to ratification of more than 160 treaties.<br /><br />Indeed, during his own tenure as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then-Senator Kerry ushered through a major arms control treaty with Russia—the so called “New START” nuclear arms reduction treaty.<br /><br />Therefore the Senate is clearly capable of passing treaties, just not unpopular ones like the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or apparently the Iran nuclear deal.</blockquote>Yeah, it's those treaties with terrorist nations that are hard to get 2/3 support for.<br /><br />John Kerry has another hole in his knowledge of or respect for the Constitution. Apparently, <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/28/kerry-cant-say-if-he-will-follow-the-law-if-congress-rejects-iran-deal-video/">the administration he serves is above the law.</a><blockquote>While testifying before the House of Representatives on the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Secretary of State John Kerry would not commit to following the law should Congress override a threatened presidential veto.<br /><br />Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) asked what the administration would do if Congress overrides a veto and rejects the deal. “You strongly do not want us to override a presidential veto, but if we do that triggers certain American laws,” Sherman asked, “I’d like to give you an opportunity — you don’t want us to do it, you think it’s terrible policy, you think the rest of the world would be against us — but lets say Congress doesn’t take your advice, we override a veto. And the law that’s triggered then imposes certain sanctions. Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement clearly and even if you think it’s absolutely terrible policy?”<br /><br />Secretary Kerry said he could not answer that question. “I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the president and determining what the circumstances are,” he responded.<br /><br />Sherman interrupted, asking, “So, you’re not committed to following the law if you think it’s a bad law?”<br /><br />“No,” Kerry said, “I said I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, that’s all.”</blockquote>It might be a hypothetical, but there should be only one answer to a question about what the administration should do if the Congress passes a law regarding Iran over a presidential veto. But such mundane concerns are beneath this Secretary of State and this President.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_ssw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fmrsnewspagofh-20%2F8003%2F50900d33-39fc-49e3-baec-ee8265e57a57&Operation=GetScriptTemplate"> </SCRIPT> <noscript><a HREF="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_ssw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fmrsnewspagofh-20%2F8003%2F50900d33-39fc-49e3-baec-ee8265e57a57&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</A></NOSCRIPT><br /><br /><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/will-the-real-donald-trump-please-stand-up-120607.html">Politico tries to figure </a>out who Donald Trump really is and what he really believes. It's a tough job.<blockquote>hich side is Donald Trump on?<br /><br />Trump once endorsed a massive surtax on the rich. But he now wants the top income tax rate cut in half.<br />Story Continued Below<br /><br />He opposed the war in Iraq, but says he now has a “foolproof” plan to defeat ISIL.<br /><br />He’s praised single-payer health care, yet loathes Obamacare. But a decade ago he proposed “health marts” that sound suspiciously like today’s Obamacare exchanges.<br /><br />Over the past two decades he was a Republican, then an independent, then a Democrat, then a Republican. Now, registered as an independent, he leads the Republican 2016 presidential field.<br /><br />But what does Donald Trump really believe on policy? It’s hard to tell — his campaign will identify no policy director, he has no “issues” tab on his campaign website and he hasn’t given any substantive policy speeches on the campaign trail.<br /><br />“His hair has been more permanent than his political positions,” said Thomas P. Miller, a health care policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “It’s a total random assortment of whatever plays publicly.”<br />Voters are drawn to Trump more for his I’ll-say-anything style than for his policy views. But a close inspection of Trump’s two published policy tomes, “The America We Deserve” (2000) and “Time To Get Tough” (2011), along with Trump’s public statements in interviews, on Twitter and in public appearances, indicate that Trump’s policy preferences are eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory.<br /><br />Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump signs an autograph before addressing the Republican Party of Arkansas Reagan Rockefeller dinner in Hot Springs, Ark., Friday, July 17, 2015. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston)<br /><br />Some of his policy stances are flatout disqualifying to the Republican establishment, but that doesn’t seem to matter. The inconsistencies may even be an asset in assembling a coalition.<br /><br />To a large extent Trump’s policy contradictions reflect his rapidly shifting political alliances over the past 15 years.<br /><br />In 1999, Trump quit the Republican Party, saying “I just believe the Republicans are just too crazy right.” Trump was then conferring with political consultant Roger Stone about a possible presidential run as a candidate of the Reform Party, the political organization founded by his fellow billionaire Ross Perot.<br /><br />In 2001, Trump quit the Reform Party to register as a Democrat. “It just seems that the economy does better under Democrats,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in 2004. The Clintons attended Trump’s Palm Beach wedding to former model Melania Knaus in 2005. The following year Trump gave $26,000 to the House and Senate campaign committees.<br />By the late aughts, though, Trump’s political giving had started shifting back to the GOP, and in 2009 Trump registered again as a Republican. Two years later he registered as an independent while contemplating a third-party bid.<br /><br />It was during Trump’s leftward drift in 1999 that he first proposed a wealth tax — a one-time 14.25 percent levy on fortunes more than $10 million that inequality guru Thomas Piketty might salivate over. “The concept of a one-time tax on the super-wealthy is something he feels strongly about,” Stone told the Los Angeles Times.</blockquote>The list goes on and on. It's a handy list for some Republican to stand up on stage at the debate next week and challenge Trump on or for reporters to ask him. <br /><br />And some GOP voters were upset by the handful of flip flops that Mitt Romney had made.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=offtocollege14&banner=0P58ZNASW9X5YYN8JGG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=3JXOQNUYQPGH45MK" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Even if you're an angry Republican voter who is disgusted with the leaders of the party, why would Donald Trump be the answer to those complaints? <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421676/print">Kevin Williamson writes</a> on that theme.<blockquote>The Trumpkins insist that this isn’t about Trump but about the perfidious Republican establishment, which is insufficiently committed to the conservative project. Fair enough. But what of Trump’s commitment? Being at the precipice of his eighth decade walking this good green earth, Trump has had a good long while to establish himself as a leader on — <i>something</i>. He isn’t a full-spectrum conservative, but he seems to have conservative-ish instincts on a few issues. What has he done with them? There are many modes of leadership available to the adventurous billionaire: Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who is the less famous and more competent version of Trump, is directly involved in campaigns, while Charles and David Koch have engaged in electoral politics <i>and </i>done the long-term (and probably more consequential) work of nurturing a stable of institutions dedicated to advancing the cause of liberty, and Bill Gates has put his billions behind his priorities. Trump has made some political donations — to Herself, to Harry Reid, to Nancy Pelosi, to Schumer — and his <i>defense</i> is that these were purely self-serving acts of influence-purchasing rather than expressions of genuine principle. There is no corpus of Trump work on any issue of any significance; on his keystone issue, illegal immigration, he has not even managed to deliver a substantive speech, a deficiency no doubt rooted in his revealed inability to voice a complete sentence.<br /><br />Donald Trump, who inherited a real-estate empire worth hundreds of millions of dollars from his father, has had every opportunity to involve himself in the consequential questions of his time. He has been a very public figure for decades, with a great deal of time, money, celebrity, business connections, and other resources to put in the service of something that matters. Seventy years in, and his curriculum vitae is remarkably light on public issues for a man who would be president. One would think that a life spent in public might inspire at least a smidgen of concern about the wide world. He might have had any sort of life he chose, and Trump chose a clown’s life. There is no shortage of opportunities for engagement, but there is only one thing that matters to Trump, and his presidential campaign, like everything else he has done in his seven decades, serves only that end.</blockquote><br />But don't worry about Trump - <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/249456-mark-cuban-praises-trump-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-politics-in-a-long">Mark Cuban likes him.</a> I guess that billionaires stick together.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/28/why_voters_dont_trust_hillary_clinton_127567.html">Debra Saunders reflects</a> on how Hillary Clinton's server scandal links to everything people haven't liked about Hillary.<blockquote>In 1996, The New York Times' William Safire branded Clinton a "congenital liar" in a column that cited the first lady's amazing acumen in the commodities market, her role in firing staff in the White House travel office and the mysterious disappearance and appearance of documents from her former law firm. The Clintons have a way of playing the clock until the public loses interest in an overcomplicated story.<br /><br />The Clinton email/private server story is too technical, as well, but it directs attention to other Clinton vices:<br /><br />1) Blind ambition. Clinton was her party's front-runner in 2008, but then Democrats bolted to a first-term senator from Illinois. Yes, they liked Barack Obama, but also, they did not trust Clinton, who had voted for the Iraq War before she turned against it.<br /><br />2) Greed. Bill and Hillary Clinton raked in $25 million in speaking fees over 16 months. Clinton maintains she wants to fight for income inequality, even as she charged UCLA $300,000 for one speech last year -- and that fee, paid by a private fund, was her special "university rate."<br /><br />3) Mendacity. Given Clinton's history in the White House, it is impossible to believe she thought she should use a private server for sensitive national security correspondence, which is part of the public record. If she wanted to keep her personal emails private, Clinton knows she should have kept a separate private account. It shows how little respect Clinton has for the public that she would contend that she simply did not want to carry two phones.<br /><br />In July, Clinton told CNN's Brianna Keilar: "Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate." Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler gave that statement three Pinocchios for "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions."<br /><br />Clinton treated a top Cabinet post as a personal fiefdom. How do you think she would treat the White House? </blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Don't trust the recent news that the Social security Trust Fund had moved back one year the date when the Trust Fund is going to run out of money. <a href="http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/072815-763757-social-security-trustees-report-relies-on-dubious-assumption.htm">The assumptions in that forecast</a> are much more generous than the ones that the CBO and Federal Reserve and OMB have made.<br /><br />Ah, the familiar dodge of Democratic politicians when they're caught out wasting energy like flying on private planes - they say they'll be "carbon neutral" by doing some sort of offsets. That's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/hillary-clinton-carbon-neutral-campaign-2016/index.html">Hillary's campaign's answer </a>to questions about her hypocrisy. Once again, as Boccaccio wrote, it's a matter of "Do as we say, not as we do." Back in the 16th century, those were called indulgences and <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0420/Buying-carbon-offsets-may-ease-eco-guilt-but-not-global-warming">they're as phony now </a>as they were then. <blockquote>An investigation by The Christian Science Monitor and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting has found that individuals and businesses who are feeding a $700 million global market in offsets are often buying vague promises instead of the reductions in greenhouse gases they expect.<br /><br />Recommended: Could you pass a US citizenship test?<br />They are buying into projects that are never completed, or paying for ones that would have been done anyhow, the investigation found. Their purchases are feeding middlemen and promoters seeking profits from green schemes that range from selling protection for existing trees to the promise of planting new ones that never thrive. In some cases, the offsets have consequences that their purchasers never foresaw, such as erecting windmills that force poor people off their farms.<br /><br />Carbon offsets are the environmental equivalent of financial derivatives: complex, unregulated, unchecked and – in many cases – not worth their price.<br /><br />And often, those who get the “green credits” thinking their own carbon emissions have been offset, are fooled. The Vatican was among them.</blockquote>It's nice of the campaign to promise that they'll be offsetting their waste of energy; they know that no one will ever look into what they actually did and if that was effective.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Meanwhile,<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/249448-intel-chief-lack-of-opm-response-makes-hackers-bolder-and-bolder"> we have other things to fear.</a><blockquote>Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that if the U.S. doesn’t respond to the recent cyberattacks on the federal government, it will cause digital adversaries to “get bolder and bolder.”<br /><br />Pressure has been building on the Obama administration to retaliate or at least publicly accuse someone for the hacks at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).<br /><br />The data breach exposed more than 22 million people’s sensitive information. Clapper called the stolen data “a gold mine for a foreign intelligence service, whoever it was,” during an interview Tuesday on “Andrea Mitchell Reports.” <br />Officials have said privately they believe China is behind the attack. But they have also indicated the White House will withhold from publicly blaming the Asian superpower over concerns about exposing classified intelligence.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/hitler-thats-too-easy-you-have-to-work-harder-b99543807z1-318441641.html">Christian Schneider of the Milwaukee Journal sentinel exactly nails it</a> that it is just lazy of politicians to jump to Hitler comparisons to describe their political opponents. He has in mind Wisconsin liberals who have reached for the Hitler comparison for Scott Walker. But if you're going to compare a politician with whom you have policy disagreements to a genocidal maniac, there are other choices out there.<blockquote>For instance, you may want to opt for Mao Zedong, who made Hitler look like a piker. Hitler is blamed for the deaths of around 17 million civilians; Chairman Mao, on the other hand, is credited with the deaths of between 50 and 80 million people during his rule in China.<br /><br />If Mao is too obvious, I'd suggest going with Josef Stalin, who's credited with the deaths of 23 million people. And if you really want to impress your friends, invoke the frequently forgotten Leopold II of Belgium, who was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 10 million Congolese citizens.<br /><br />So if you're keeping score at home, you have Mao Zedong at 80 million casualties, Stalin at 23 million, Hitler at 17 million, Leopold at 10 million and, just a hair behind them, Gov. Scott Walker at...zero.<br /><br />Look, we are all rooting for you. So if you're going to embarrass yourself, be bold and unapologetic. Moderation is for people who just don't care as much as you do. With just a little research, you can finally reach your goal of being the smartest ignoramus we all know you can be.</blockquote><br />It can be a very slippery slope<a href="http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/27/how-supreme-courts-understanding-of-liberty-in-gay-marriage-case-could-have-repercussions/"> to let the Supreme Court define what liberty is.</a> Liberals might be concerned about that.<blockquote>[Justice] Alito pointed out that under this view, “liberty” is in the eye of the beholder: A libertarian Supreme Court justice might be willing to throw out minimum wage laws under the “liberty of contract” or zoning laws as violating property rights; a socialist justice might decide that “liberty” includes free college tuition and a guaranteed annual income.</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br />The Washington Post has<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/in-the-reverse-peace-corps-future-leaders-from-abroad-hone-their-skills/2015/07/27/57faaff8-03c5-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html"> a very nice article </a>about <a href="http://www.atlascorps.org/team.php">Atlas Corps</a>, the non-profit organization at which my younger daughter has worked for the past three years. We're very proud of her. And it's a great organization.<br /><br />This is funny - <a href="http://www.tickld.com/x/jaw/the-20-biggest-plot-holes-in-world-history?utm_source=tickld&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=worldhistory&ts_pid=2">"The 20 Biggest Plot Holes in World HIstory If It Was a Movie."</a><blockquote>11. A real jump the shark moment was when they let Napoleon come back just for them to beat him again. Really lazy writing there. <br /><br />13. A plague wipes out vast quantities of Europeans, and then shows up randomly later? Obvious sequel bait. </blockquote>Hey, here is a movie idea - have Napoleon unleash a secret weapon at Waterloo - <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374300755/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0374300755&link_code=as3&tag=mrsnewspagofh-20&linkId=3OBWZIOZF24HB4FL">a Tyrannosaurus Rex and other giant dinosaurs. </a> Because everyone knows that giant lizards would be on the side of the French.<br /><blockquote>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374300755/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0374300755&link_code=as3&tag=mrsnewspagofh-20&linkId=KII5U5JRHQFSZRUQ</blockquote><br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-57524365056300867542015-07-28T07:06:00.000-04:002015-07-28T11:42:25.872-04:00Cruising the WebWe still don't know how Chuck Schumer is going to vote on the deal with Iran. Yet, by his own standards, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/27/iran-deal-fails-4-of-schumers-5-demands/">the deal fails five of the issues he laid out in May that should be necessary for a deal.</a> We'll see if Schumer was just saying what his audience of Orthodox Jews wanted to hear or he really meant what he said.<br /><br />And I'd be fascinated to hear the logic by which any Democratic senator<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-secret-iran-deals-exposed/2015/07/27/26d14dbc-3460-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html"> would defend this.</a><blockquote>Pompeo says they asked whether they could see those agreements. He says IAEA officials replied, “ ‘Oh no, of course not, no, you’re not going to get to see those.’ And so everybody on our side of the table asked, ‘Has Secretary Kerry seen these?’ ‘No, Secretary Kerry hasn’t seen them. No American is ever going to get to see them.’ ”<br /><br />It turns out that only the two parties — the IAEA and Iran — get to see the actual agreements (though you can see a picture of Iranian and IAEA officials holding up what appear to be the secret accords here).<br /><br />In other words, Obama is gambling our national security and handing over $150 billion in sanctions relief to Iran, based on secret agreements negotiated between the IAEA and Iran that no U.S. official has seen.<br /><br />“We need to see these documents in order to evaluate whether or not verification is ample to make such a big concession to the Iranians,” Pompeo says. “No member of Congress should be asked to vote on an agreement of this historic importance absent knowing what the terms of the verification process are.”<br /><br />In fact, the Obama administration’s failure to transmit these side deals to Congress is a violation of the law. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which Obama signed into law, explicitly states that the president must transmit the nuclear agreement along with “all related materials and annexes.” That clearly covers any side agreements covering the verification of Iran’s compliance.<br /><br />Susan Rice told reporters the administration “provided Congress with all of the documents that we drafted or were part of drafting and all documents shared with us by the IAEA.” Sorry, that’s not what the law requires.<br /><br />But the administration cannot hand over what it apparently does not have. For Pompeo, that raises even more troubling questions. “Why on earth is the president letting the negotiations [on verification] be negotiated by someone other than us?” he asks. How can it be that the administration would “do a deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, that’s spent its entire existence cheating, and we would sign off on a deal with them whose core provisions are completely unknown to our side? It’s remarkable.”<br /><br />What is in the secret side deals? According to Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the side deals governing inspections of the Parchin military complex allows Iran to collect its own soil samples, instead of IAEA inspectors. That is like letting Lance Armstrong collect his own blood samples for a doping investigation. “I suspect if we’re able to actually go over [these agreements], you find half a dozen that you would stare at and realize we really didn’t get verification,” Pompeo says.</blockquote><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_ssw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fmrsnewspagofh-20%2F8003%2F50900d33-39fc-49e3-baec-ee8265e57a57&Operation=GetScriptTemplate"> </SCRIPT> <noscript><a HREF="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_ssw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fmrsnewspagofh-20%2F8003%2F50900d33-39fc-49e3-baec-ee8265e57a57&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</A></NOSCRIPT><br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politics/hillary-clinton-gender-merits/?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Jolt&utm_campaign=Jolt07242015">Hillary Clinton wants us not to vote for us because she's a woman, yet she also wants us to vote for her because she is a woman.</a> Her logic is as lame as her whole campaign.<blockquote>"Clearly, I'm not asking people to vote for me simply because I'm a woman. I'm asking people to vote for me on the merits," Clinton said.<br /><br />Then she directly addressed gender, adding: "I think one of the merits is I am a woman. And I can bring those views and perspectives to the White House."</blockquote>Huh?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/the-holes-in-hillary-clintons-climate-plan-120682.html?hp=t2_r">Hillary Clinton seems to have left a lot</a> out of her climate plan. And liberals aren't happy about it.<blockquote>Hillary Clinton’s newly unveiled climate vision sounds ambitious on its face: 500 million new solar panels from coast to coast, eco-minded energy tax breaks and enough green power to keep the lights on in every U.S. home.<br /><br />But just as glaring are the details she left out.<br /><br />Does Clinton support or oppose the Keystone XL oil pipeline? Or Arctic offshore drilling? Or tougher restrictions on fracking? Or the oil industry’s push to lift the 1970s ban on exporting U.S. crude oil? Clinton avoided all those questions in the solar-heavy climate plan she outlined Sunday night and in her speech promoting it Monday in Iowa — and she declined yet again Monday to say where she stands on Keystone.<br /><br />That means that liberals longing for Clinton to erase what they see as the dirtiest spot on President Barack Obama’s environmental record — his support for an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that includes domestic oil and gas drilling — have to keep waiting. Greens want to cheer for Clinton, but Democratic rivals Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley are already trying to outflank her with even more ambitious climate plans, while the GOP attacks her from the right.<br /><br />“Clinton’s climate plan is remarkable for what it doesn’t say, yet,” California-based environmental activist R.L. Miller, who founded the Climate Hawks Vote PAC, said in a statement. Specifically, she added, Clinton offered “no effort to keep fossil fuels in the ground, no price on carbon; no word on Keystone XL, Arctic oil or other carbon bombs; no word on fracking.”</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/four-poll-numbers-to-make-hillary-clinton-sweat/">Chris Cillizza looks at four poll numbers </a>that should really scare Hillary Clinton. The more people see her, the less they like her.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion.html">John McWhorter has a very thoughtful essay</a> on what he describes as America's new religion - Antiracism.<blockquote>Yet Antiracism as religion has its downsides. It encourages an idea that racism in its various guises must be behind anything bad for black people, which is massively oversimplified in 2015. For example, it is thrilling to see the fierce, relentless patrolling, assisted by social media, that the young black activists covered in a recent New York Times Magazine piece have been doing to call attention to cops’ abuse of black people. That problem is real and must be fixed, as I have written about frequently, often to the irritation of the Right. However, imagine if there were a squadron of young black people just as bright, angry and relentless devoted to smoking out the bad apples in poor black neighborhoods once and for all, in alliance with the police forces often dedicated to exactly that? I fear we’ll never see it—Antiracism creed forces attention to the rogue cops regardless of whether they are the main problem.<br /><br />The fact is that Antiracism, as a religion, pollutes our race dialogue as much as any lack of understanding by white people of their Privilege. For example, the good Antiracist supports black claims that standardized tests are “racist” in that black people don’t do as well on them as other students. But Antiracism also encourages us to ask why, oh why black people are suspected of being less intelligent than others—despite this take on the tests, and aspiring firefighters and even teachers making news with similar claims that tough tests are “racist.” Now, to say that if black people can’t be expected to take tests then they must not be as smart is, under Antiracism, blasphemous—one is not to ask too many questions. The idea of a massive effort—as concentrated as the people battling cop abuse against black people—to get black kids practice in taking standardized tests doesn’t come up, because the scripture turns our heads in other directions.<br /><br />And too often, Antiracism doctrine loses sight of what actually helps black people. Ritual “acknowledgment” of White Privilege is, ultimately, for white people to feel less guilty. Social change hardly requires such self-flagellation by the ruling class. Similarly, black America needs no grand, magic End of Days in order to succeed. A compact program of on-the-ground policy changes could do vastly more than articulate yearnings for a hypothetical psychological revolution among whites that no one seriously imagines could ever happen in life as we know it.<br /><br />Antiracism as a religion, despite its good intentions, distracts us from activism in favor of a kind of charismatic passivism. One is to think, to worship, to foster humility, to conceive of our lives as mere rehearsal for a glorious finale, and to encourage others to do the same. This kind of thinking may have its place in a human society. But helping black people succeed in the only real world we will ever know is not that place.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=offtocollege14&banner=0P58ZNASW9X5YYN8JGG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=3JXOQNUYQPGH45MK" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/confused-about-the-highway-billobamacareexport-import-bankiranplanned-parenthood-fiasco-read-this/article/2569023">Timothy Carney explains </a>what has been going on with the Highway bill and Ex-Im Bank votes. <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/27/why-does-the-republican-party-exist/">It all leads Ben Domenech t</a>o wonder why the Republican Party even exists and what principle it serves.<blockquote>Why does the Republican Party exist? What is its purpose as a political entity – to what end do its members work to elect their fellow Republicans? What are its priorities? Whose interests does it serve? Why is this political party still around so long after its primary motivations for creation – the defense of the Union and the end of slavery – were achieved? The Democratic Party exists to serve its clients – but the Republican Party’s justification is more ethereal. Is it just an arbitrary entity seeking a universal negative, designed to push back against Democratic policies and demand they be more something (efficient) or less something else (expensive)? Or does it have actual principles and priorities it seeks to make a reality?<br /><br />The Republican Party’s voters and supporters certainly seem to have such beliefs. But they rarely seem to make it through the process of synthesis that turns such beliefs into actual policy priorities. Being a negative force is not nothing, and blocking bad policy is worthwhile. But when given the opportunity to put good policy into place, or to take steps to make such policy more feasible in the future, where is the Republican Party to be found?</blockquote><a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/27/heres-why-republicans-hate-the-republican-party/">David Harsanyi </a>takes a stab on explaining why Republican voters are so disgruntled with the Republican Party.<blockquote>There are, no doubt, countless answers to the above question, but let me take a stab at it: It’s conceivable, and I’m just spitballing here, that many conservatives are wondering: If the Republican Party is incapable or unwilling to make a compelling case against the selling of baby organs or the emergence of a nuclear Iran or the funding of a cronyist state-run bank—or all three—then really, what exactly can it do?<br /><br />Setting aside presidential politics for a moment, three issues have filled the conservative ether the past few weeks: The administration’s pact abetting Iran’s efforts to become a threshold nuclear power, Planned Parenthood’s organ harvesting controversy, and, to a lesser extent, the renewal of the Export-Import bank. None of these are hobbyhorses of the wild fringe. They’re issues—ostensibly, at least—that are core issues of the modern GOP. And on all three, the GOP has, though it has plenty of leverage to raise a stink, capitulated. In fact, it has probably put more effort into evading confrontation than its standard response of pretending to court it.<br /><br />I’ve long defended John Boehner’s House as one the most productive in history— obstructing more detrimental and intrusive legislation than any other in modern history. This is a meaningful legacy. From 2010 to 2014, the House was the nation’s checks and balances—inadvertently, perhaps, but still the only thing stopping a monocracy. Even most rank-and-file conservatives disagreed with this assessment. While no one (or, I should say, no sensible person) is expecting the GOP to demand a shutdown, what’s the point of a party that not only ignores issues conservatives are emotionally and ideologically invested in but ones that could appeal to a wider electorate?<br /><br />How shameless was the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, as he laid into John Kerry at the Iran-deal hearings earlier this week? Corker had the temerity to claim the administration had “been fleeced” by the Iranians after listening to the administration’s rationalizations for the deal.<br /><br />This might be true. It might also be true that Corker was willing to abdicate his responsibility of holding on to congressional oversight when he agreed to a framework that allows the Iranian deal to move forward even if a majority of the Senate votes no. It’s the risk-free alternative. Corker (and others) can now profess disgust at the outcome, lecture the administration about its impotence, and oppose the deal for the benefit of conservative voters while having, in essence, voted for it months ago.</blockquote>So it is very depressing, but I don't think that the answer is Donald Trump. <br /><br />I'm with John Podhoretz. <a href="https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/07/27/donald-trump-polls-despair/">He is depressed about politics</a> for the vary reasons I have been.<blockquote>No sense pretending: Donald Trump is the only news of the 2016 race, and this fact says something very troubling about the Republican party, the conservative electorate, the mass media culture, and the United States in general. Sounds like an exaggeration, but it’s not. Really it’s not.<br /><br />Ted Cruz goes to war with the GOP Senate leadership; Hillary Clinton proposes the highest tax rates in 70 years; Marco Rubio goes after John Kerry on the Iran deal in a Senate hearing. Well, big deal. Phffft. They’ve all been crowded out by the Trump noise. There will be the first Republican debate in ten days. It’s the most important political event of the year thus far. And it will be all about Trump. He will see to that; the reporters will see to that, and the minor candidates looking to move up will see to it by trying to pick fights with him and best him.<br /><br />It’s not enough to say that there are matters of deathly serious to be discussed, from Iran to ISIS to the possible collapse of the Euro and the Chinese economy to the harvesting of fetal organs, because there are always serious matters to be discussed as elections approach. The issue with Trump is that his approach can only be called “the politics of unseriousness.” He engages with no issue, merely offers a hostile and pithy soundbite bromide about it. He yammers. He describes how wonderful things will be when he acts against something or other without explaining how he will act, what he will do, or how it will work.<br /><br />The Trump view, boiled down: <i>They’re all idiots and I’m very rich and I know how to do things and if you say Word One against me I will say something incredibly nasty about you and who cares about how the Senate works or the House works or international alliances work or how treaties work or how anything works. That stuff is for sissies and losers and disasters. I know how to do it I me me me I me me I I me. And me. And I.</i></blockquote>Add in the Iran deal, and it's been an extremely depressing few weeks.<br /><br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/san-frans-1-problem-might-be-solved-with-pee-resistant-paint/article/2569043">San Francisco has found a way</a> to deal with one problem. <blockquote>San Francisco is testing the idea of painting walls with urine-repellant paint that will soak the sprayer before the wall gets wet.<br /><br />Mohammed Nuru, San Francisco's director of public works, got the idea to use the paint, Ultra-Ever Dry, after reading about its effectiveness in Hamburg, Germany. The paint repels most liquids so the urine would "bounce back" on the sprayer.<br /><br />"The urine will bounce back on the guy's pants and shoes," Rachel Gordon, a public works department spokeswoman, said. "The idea is they will think twice next time about urinating in public."<br /><br />After painting nine walls around areas with prominent nightlife or homeless communities, the city has received requests many other requests for the paint. In fact, it costs less money to paint the wall than to clean it, Gordon said, according to The Guardian.</blockquote>I suppose that is innovative, but arresting and fining a few guys might accomplish just as much.<br /><br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Oh, geez. Here is the latest wimpiness from the gender wars. Now, apparently men need to worry that <a href="https://blogstupidgirl.wordpress.com/2015/07/24/roasted-wienie-at-slate-says-backyard-barbecuing-makes-men-feel-too-masculine/">they're buying into some macho stereotype by enjoying grilling.</a><br /><br />Okay, Seattle raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour. but that leads to a problem. Now workers are earning too much money to qualify for subsidized housing and child care. <a href="http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/30040-workers-in-seattle-have-their-precious-15-minimum-wage-but-now-they-want-fewer-hours"> Miss CJ at Chicks on the Right comments</a>, <blockquote>Sooooo... the point of a higher minimum wage wasn't necessarily so you could provide things like housing and food and childcare for yourself - it was just to have more money for whatever else you wanted while the government continues to provide all the free/cheap stuff they were giving you BEFORE you got the minimum wage raise? You mean that even when people don't have to be totally dependent on the government, they still WANT to be?<br /><br />HOLY SOCIALISM, BATMAN!<br /><br />Basically, they want a "living wage" (whatever the heck THAT means) AND they still want all the freebies the government gives them. Because that's TOTALLY the point of working hard and being independent. And the sad thing is, liberals are seriously cheering this on<br /><br />No wonder we're doomed.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-charter-solution/article/2568873">Charter schools in New Orleans since Katrina </a>have been a very bright spot in education reform.<blockquote>Students that had been almost certainly destined for failure simply by having been born in New Orleans today have the chance to succeed. "There's nobody that can argue that children are not getting a much better education today than they were getting prior to Hurricane Katrina," Campbell said.<br /><br />In May, the first group of kindergartners that started at Hynes after Katrina will graduate the eighth grade and head off to high school. With a long waiting list, Douglas said she's considering whether Hynes should open a second campus soon.<br /><br />New Orleans isn't perfect, but there are lessons that can be learned from its education reforms. The old one-size-fits-all education model is a failure. Flexibility for school leaders can empower them to accomplish amazing things, even in the face of unprecedented adversity. Giving families a choice of where to send their children helps keep schools accountable.<br /><br />Most importantly, when an education system fails students, don't wait until God intervenes to fix it.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/27/the-4-most-embarrassing-things-cecile-richards-said-in-defense-of-planned-parenthood/">Molli Hemingway lists the four most embarrassing things</a> from Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards' appearance on ABC News with George Stephanopoulos. Hemingway totally describes the whole defense that the videos are edited.<blockquote>There are a few problems with this talking point, however. First and foremost is that the journalists who taped the undercover videos took the additional step of releasing the lengthy full footage of the interviews at the same time they released shortened versions. Here’s the full footage of Dr. Nucatola, running 2 hours and 42 minutes. Here’s the 9-minute cut of the full footage. Here’s the full transcript. Here’s the full footage of Mary Gatter, running 1 hour and 14 minutes. Here’s the 8-minute cut of the full footage. Here’s the full transcript. Both the full footage and the edited cuts were released at the same time and all the videos are publicly accessible. Interested parties can and should watch both videos.<br /><br />Another problem with the editing charge is that it’s basically meaningless. I mean, everything is edited. The “news” clip setting up the interview with Richards was edited. All news, whether broadcast or print, is “highly” and “selectively” edited.<br /><br />No one, and I mean no one, actually fits this description of “deceptive” editor better than Jon Stewart, beloved liberal media figure. Oh look here. Here are 10 times Planned Parenthood praised Jon Stewart.<br /><br />One major difference between Jon Stewart, who actually doctors videos, splicing answers from one question to a completely separate question, and the undercover journalists hitting Planned Parenthood hard is that only one releases full footage for all to see.<br /><br />Precisely because Planned Parenthood is running so hard with this talking point, objective journalists need to make sure people know that unlike most all the things that are edited in the world, full footage is public and ready for anyone to see. On that note, the New York Times’ Jackie Calmes falsely claimed last week that the full footage was only released after Planned Parenthood complained about the edited version. That’s incorrect. Both videos were released at the same time. I contacted the New York Times corrections desk about this factual error at 2:15 PM on Tuesday, July 21. That was a full day before the editorial page repeated the error. It remains uncorrected.<br /><br />Journalists also need to sit down and watch the full videos, which many of them rather obviously haven’t done. I would actually quibble with the editing of the videos in part because they left some of the most salacious details out. For instance, by watching the full second video, I saw that Gatter flat out said that some Planned Parenthood officials wondered whether it was legal to accept so much money for the body parts given how “we didn’t have to do anything” to get them. I might have put that in the shortened video if I were one of the journalists running this project.</blockquote>Then Richards resorted to baseless character assassination of the leader of the group making the videos. Her defense has a lot of holes in it. She better brush up on her defense because David Daleiden, the man she accused of being part of the the movement that is "behind the bombing of clinics, the murder of doctors in their homes, and in their churches," <a href="http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/why-the-catholic-behind-the-planned-parenthood-videos-went-undercover/">says that they have total of a dozen videos.</a> Who knows what Planned Parenthood employees said in those videos?<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-83070999921329442022015-07-27T07:18:00.000-04:002015-07-27T17:55:22.312-04:00Cruising the WebSean Trende, who is one of the sharpest people going when it comes to analyzing polls, <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/the-dirty-little-secrets-about-2016-predictions-119860.html#.VbUZJbNVikr">explains why we shouldn't put a lot of trust polling today.</a> First of all, the refusal rate is so very high. Then there is all the problems that pollsters have in creating their model of who will be in the electorate this time.<blockquote>For most election analysts, the raw material for a prediction comes in the form of polling data. In theory, polls represent random samples employing uniform methodologies that are lightly weighted. In reality, pollsters use a variety of sampling methods, and then heavily weight the data before (and sometimes after) pushing it through varying voter screens. Much of this is considered proprietary, so we don’t really know what is going on, but suffice it to say that pollsters aren’t just presenting “pristine” random samples.<br /><br />Even worse, pollsters seem to be increasingly engaging in something called poll herding: a tendency to either re-weight an outlying poll to fall in line with other pollsters or to fail to publish outlying polls altogether. In 2014 alone we saw evidence that PPP, Rasmussen Reports, Gravis Marketing and Hampton University all refused to release polls; forecasters suspect that there are many more instances like this (at least two of these polls were released by accident), but it is unknowable just how many.<br /><br />This matters, because if a race shifts, or if the herd is wrong, pollsters will be unable to pick up on the movement—there is a collective “you first” tendency when the data suggest pollsters should break out of the herd. Moreover, for technical reasons, models that are denied access to outlying results will tend to understate the uncertainty of their predictions. The result, then, can be the types of massive misses that we saw in the recent elections in the United Kingdom and Israel.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/why-donald-trump-was-a-democrat.php">Paul Mirengoff analyzes Donald Trump's absurd assertion </a>that the reason he previously was a Democrat was because he blamed the Republicans for the 2008 economic crash. It just doesn't make sense.<blockquote>Unfortunately, it doesn’t make historical sense; nor is it an honest explanation. The Bush administration certainly isn’t blameless when it comes to the 2008 crash. But, as we have argued and New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson and her co-author Joshua Rosen have shown, it was mainly the imposition of race-conscious lending practices on the banking industry that led to the financial crisis.<br /><br />In 1994, Bill Clinton proposed increasing home ownership through a “partnership” between government and the private sector, principally orchestrated by Fannie Mae. Lenders proceeded to promote reckless borrowing, knowing they could off­load risk to purchasers of bundled loans, and especially to Fannie. In 1994, subprime lending was $40 billion. In 1995, almost one in five mortgages was subprime. Four years later such lending totaled $160 billion.<br /><br />The Bush administration warned as early as 2001 about the problems these lending policies were creating, and in 2003, through Secretary of Treasury John Snow, pushed for reforms to address the issue. But congressional Democrats, led by Barney Frank, blocked reform legislation.<br /><br />Yes, Bush should have done more to alleviate the situation. But no, Republicans don’t bear primary responsibility for the 2008 crash.<br /><br />Nor did a belief to the contrary cause Trump to tilt to the Democrats. According to this account, Trump was a registered Democrat from 2001-2008. He switched his registration the very year that, in his telling, the Republicans “crashed the economy.”<br /><br />In truth, Trump is a natural Democrat. His views on major issues are — or were until recently — standard-issue liberal.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/07/23/donald-trump-populism-conservatism/">Peter Wehner </a>has the details.<blockquote>[Trump] has supported massive tax increases on the wealthy, a Canadian-style single-payer health care system, and is a fierce protection. He once declared himself “strongly pro-choice” and favored drug legalization.<br /><br />Earlier this year, he accused Republicans who want to reform entitlement programs — the essential task for those who favor limited government — of “attacking” Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Barack Obama couldn’t have said it better.</blockquote>And Barney Frank couldn’t have better stated the Democrats’ line on who caused the 2008 financial crisis.<br /><br />We need not consult Trump’s revisionist history of that crisis to figure out why he was a registered Democrat for most of the last decade. On key issues his views align closely with those of the Dems.<br /><br />It’s as straightforward as that.</blockquote>It would be nice to have a follow-up question to Trump as to why, if he blamed the Republicans for the recession, he chose that year to identify as a Republican.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />It's pretty bad when Hillary Clinton's only response to the administration IG's finding that her personal email account mishandled top secret information <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/clinton-s-conspiracy-of-secrecy-worthy-of-criminal-probe-20150724">is to blame the media.</a> If her go-to excuse includes blaming the New York Times, she's really running low on scapegoats.<br /><br />When she's not blaming the media or the Republicans, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/26/clinton-denies-sending-classified-information-from-private-email-server/?intcmp=hpbt1">her only response </a>seems to be, "whom do you believe - me or your lying IGs?" After all, what sort of defense does she have when independent investigators did find classified emails among those she sent from her private server. The irony really is quite delicious - of all her dishonest doings, the one that is hurting the most is due to her own paranoid efforts to avoid transparency.<br /><br />But will any of this lead Democrats to stop supporting her? Nope. <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/24/admit-it-dems-hillary-could-strangle-a-p">Matt Welch doesn't think</a> that there is anything Hillary Clinton could do, even strangling a puppy on live TV, that would lead Democrats to back off their support for her.<blockquote>So how much do Democrats value basic transparency, accountability, and honesty in their presidential candidates? Not bloody much, if you go by the handy polls over at RealClearPolitics. The six national polls taken this January and February, before the email scandal first broke, averaged out to a whopping 43 percentage-point lead for Hillary Clinton. How about the next six, in March and April? Plus 50. The 11 polls in May and June, when Berniementum first started sweeping the country, came in at +48, and the most recent five in July stand at +41.<br /><br />Do Democrats have any aversion left to Nixonian non-transparency, which had been so anathema to them during the presidency of George W. Bush? Here's a possible bellwether: Key Nixon-administration turncoat John W. Dean, who wrote a 2004 book entitled Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, reacted to the latest Clinton story by tweeting "Leaking This Makes It Pure Politics," and "GOP Behind False Charges In NYT. It's gonna be a long 16 months.<br /><br />President Barack Obama never paid any political price for pulling a complete 180 on his vows to have the most transparent administration ever, so none of this reaction should be surprising. Still, it's worth stressing that with Hillary Clinton, Democrats have dropped even the pretense of giving a sh*t about transparency. (links in original)</blockquote>Apparently, her last name and gender trump everything else.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=offtocollege14&banner=0P58ZNASW9X5YYN8JGG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=3JXOQNUYQPGH45MK" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Michael Goodwin of the NY Post is wondering which "senior government official" leaked to the NYT the story about the IGs' report. <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/07/26/hillary-has-a-dangerous-enemy-in-the-obama-administration/">His conclusion </a>is that Valerie Jarrett, with the President's knowledge is behind the leak. Goodwin doesn't think that such a dangerous leak would have been made on Hillary without approval from above. Who knows, but it's just the sort of thing that Washingtonians love to discuss.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="https://storify.com/crl826/jay-cost-explains-trump-and-why-leadership-is-hand">Jay Cost tweets out some good advice </a>for the GOP leadership. His point is that Trump's rise can be explained by the base's dissatisfaction with GOP leadership and actions since being put in charge of the complete legislative branch. One way they can reduce the demand from someone like Trump is to take conservative action on issues like the Ex-Im bank and the highway bill. (link via <a href="https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/625350376930328577">Sean Trende</a>) <br /><br />Gosh, The Man is keeping us down. Who knew that they were using <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/25/air-conditioning-is-a-big-sexist-plot-washington-post-investigation-reveals/">air conditioning now in the War on Women.</a> All I can say is that I am very thankful to be kept down by AC.<br /><br />One more liberal politician who wants <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/25/bernie-sanders-demands-15-per-hour-minimum-wage-pays-his-own-interns-12-per-hour/#ixzz3h0OPAJAj">us to do has he says, not as he does.</a><blockquote>Democratic presidential hopeful and self-described socialist Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour this week.<br /><br />However, Sanders pays his own interns just $12 per hour, notes the Media Research Center.</blockquote><br />Red-state Democrats are not thrilled about <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/red-state-democrats-leftward-shift-120605.html?hp=t1_r">the shift of their party to the left. </a> <blockquote>Centrist Democrats were wiped out in the 2014 elections and in their absence emerged a resurgent liberal movement, embodied most recently by the surprisingly competitive presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.<br />But the suddenly ascendant left — its populist overtones becoming part of the mainstream Democratic pitch — is worrying Democrats who want to compete on Republican-leaning turf. The party lost every competitive gubernatorial and Senate race in the South last year. And Democrats didn’t fare much better in the heartland.<br /><br />Now, as Bernie Sanders’ surge foreshadows a new burst of progressivism, moderate Democrats are looking to their counterparts in Washington with a plea: Don’t freeze us out.<br /><br />“The national Democratic Party’s brand makes it challenging for Democrats in red states oftentimes and I hope that going forward, the leaders at the national level will be mindful of that and they will understand that they can’t govern the country without Democrats being able to win races in red states,” said Paul Davis, who narrowly failed to unseat Republican Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback last year.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/pearson-education-115026.html#ixzz3go1Z8cpv">This story about Pearson publishing and educational testing company</a> is sad, frustrating, and unintentionally humorous. It's making big bucks by contracting to conduct testing programs in states across the country. And it's getting those jobs without having to go through competitive bidding. As a teacher in North Carolina, this doesn't surprise me at all.<blockquote>The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, for instance, declined to seek competitive bids for a new student data system on the grounds that it would be “in the best interest of the public” to simply hire Pearson, which had done similar work for the state in the past. The data system was such a disaster, the department had to pay Pearson millions extra to fix it.</blockquote>Yup, I've had to use that site and it was indeed terribly designed. Fortunately, we have a teacher at our school, an English teacher even, who designed a grading program that we can use that is so well done and he is so responsive that we don't have to use Pearson except for entering our final grades. If one English teacher at a small charter school can do that for our school, why can't the mighty Pearson get its act together? I bet you had no idea how pervasive Pearson is.<blockquote>Pearson wields enormous influence over American education.<br />It writes the textbooks and tests that drive instruction in public schools across the nation.<br /><br />Its software grades student essays, tracks student behavior and diagnoses — and treats — attention deficit disorder. The company administers teacher licensing exams and coaches teachers once they’re in the classroom. It advises principals. It operates a network of three dozen online public schools. It co-owns the for-profit company that now administers the GED.<br /><br />A top executive boasted in 2012 that Pearson is the largest custodian of student data anywhere.<br /><br />And that’s just its K-12 business.<br /><br />Pearson’s interactive tutorials on subjects from algebra to philosophy form the foundation of scores of college courses. It builds online degree programs for a long list of higher education clients, including George Washington University, Arizona State and Texas A&M. The universities retain authority over academics, but Pearson will design entire courses, complete with lecture PowerPoints, discussion questions, exams and grading rubrics.<br /><br />The company is even marketing a product that lets college professors track how long their students spend reading Pearson textbooks each night.<br /></blockquote>Unfortunately, as Politico documents, there is little evidence that Pearson is achieving the gains it is supposed to be achieving.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/22/sexist_scientist_tim_hunt_the_real_story_127491.html?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Jolt&utm_campaign=Jolt07232015">Cathy Young examines</a> the whole kerfuffle about Nobel Prize-winning British scientist Tim Hunt and his supposedly sexist comments that outraged feminists. Apparently, the whole thing was completely bogus and, as often, a mess of reporting by the media that didn't bother doing even a cursory amount of research.<br /><br />For all those progressives who think so highly of European-style socialism, t<a href="http://nypost.com/2015/07/20/why-working-moms-dont-have-it-better-in-europe-than-in-the-us/">hings aren't actually so great there for working mothers.</a> (Link via <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421457/europe-hardly-paradise-working-mothers-fred-schwarz">Fred Schwarz</a>) Amazingly, when employers are forced to give out two years paid leave, they aren't so eager to hire young women and treat them differently when they return. <br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/358059.php">Ace links</a> to <a href="http://deadline.com/2015/07/jon-stewart-daily-show-wyatt-cenac-marc-maron-1201484522/">the story of Jon Stewart's reaction</a> when his one black writer said he was uncomfortable with the way that Stewart was impersonating Herman Cain. Apparently, Stewart couldn't take the mere hint that he might be racist.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Find out the m<a href="http://www3.forbes.com/lifestyle/the-most-conservative-and-most-liberal-cities-in-america/">ost conservative and liberal cities in America.</a> No real surprises.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/can-a-computer-guess-who-is-a-republican-and-who-is-a-democrat-20150724">Scientists are trying </a>to see if a computer can figure out, just by analyzing speech, whether politician is Republican or Democratic. They compiled a list of phrases that each party member is more likely to say in order to program their computer. What struck me was how the phrases they chose indicate that the parties talk about totally different subjects. You're not going to get a Democrat talking about the IRS or a Republican use the phrases "Tax breaks" or "wealthiest." And, apparently, Republicans are much less likely to use the word "bureaucrats" than Democrats. Just looking at the list tells us a lot more about the parties than some useless computer program.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/outlet/google-news/">Pew has an interesting interactive look </a>at the political ideology of consumers of major news outlets. What I found striking is how few outlets there were that conservatives use, while there are a whole lot that liberals mostly use. Basically, if there weren't Fox News and a few online sites and radio shows, there would be no place that conservatives to feel comfortable getting their news from. No wonder Fox News drives liberals crazy. It's a lonely outpost.<br /><br />So how do<a href="http://qz.com/462264/how-the-rest-of-the-world-learns-about-the-american-revolution-in-school/"> other countries cover the American Revolution in their schools?</a> Apparently, most don't or, if they do, they cover it as a precursor to the French Revolution. Even in Britain, it seems to be a minor event and "historical curiosity." I get why European nations would find the French Revolution more important, but in the grand scheme of things, I think our revolution was much more important for the world.<br /><br />Now that the Democrats are getting rid of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson as their party's heroes, they're in need of some new heroes. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421587/print"> Mark Krikorian has some suggestions of other notable Democrats.</a><blockquote>How about we offer the Democrats some friendly suggestions of other famous Democrats to rename their party’s annual dinners after? How about the Nathan Bedford Forrest-Roger Taney Dinner? The Alger Hiss-Angela Davis Dinner? The Lester Maddox-Robert Byrd Dinner? </blockquote>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-16779813882437413702015-07-24T07:29:00.000-04:002015-07-24T07:29:00.038-04:00Cruising the WebCan this really part of the Iran deal? <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/23/wait-a-sec-un-inspectors-will-be-forced-to-rely-on-samples-provided-by-iran/">Allahpundit </a>links to this news from today's hearing in the Senate on the deal.<blockquote><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Most interesting news of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Iran?src=hash">#Iran</a> hearing: IAEA will have to rely on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Iran?src=hash">#Iran</a> to take samples at Parchin and other sites for its PMD investigation</p>&mdash; Jackson Diehl (@JacksonDiehl) <a href="https://twitter.com/JacksonDiehl/status/624249988823031809">July 23, 2015</a></blockquote><script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote>This deal gets worse the more we find out about it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421531/print">Ted Bromund explains the disastrous non-nuclear consequences </a>of the Iran.<blockquote>The fate of the regime of Western sanctions on Iran matters just as much, because those sanctions have wide-ranging global implications.<br /><br />When politicians and journalists discuss such sanctions, the verb they invariably use is “impose” — a blithe word for a devilish reality. Sanctions regimes are not like a parking gate that swings up or down, closing and opening at the whim of its operator. They are more like medieval cathedrals: each one based on blueprints, each one in practice a custom job, built painstakingly, piece by piece, through the labor of many hands. Turning the blueprints of precedent and preparedness into reality takes years, and the work is never really done, because rogue states like Iran are constantly looking for new ways to evade the sanctions placed on them.<br /><br />Of all the world’s sanctions regimes, none has achieved greater complexity and sophistication than the one the West, with the U.S. in the lead, imposed on Iran. By comparison, U.S. sanctions on North Korea are limited and feeble. The U.S. has not even managed to designate Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s uncontested tyrant, responsible for North Korea’s evasion of the existing restrictions. As North Korea expert Joshua Stanton points out, Iran, unlike North Korea, is subject to special measures under section 311 of the USA Patriot Act, as well as to comprehensive transaction-licensing requirements and terrorism-related sanctions.<br /><br />Supporters of the deal like to argue that the only alternative was war. President Obama is a past master at posing this kind of false choice, and in his speech on July 14, after the deal was done, he was at it again, asserting that “no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.” On the contrary: Sanctions offered the only chance of convincing the Iranian regime to genuinely give up its program, constraining its ability to realize its nuclear ambitions, or creating enough discontent to lead to the regime’s overthrow by the Iranian people. By posing his false alternative, the president has in fact created it. As Churchill said of Chamberlain, Obama had the power to choose, but he considered only two options: dishonor and war. He chose dishonor, and he will get war.<br /><br />That is because, by Obama’s own telling, the Iranian regime was extremely attached to its dangerous nuclear program, so attached that sanctions were necessary to bring the regime to the table. The president’s logic then dictates that the only thing capable of preventing the regime from returning to its program is the threat of the re-imposition of those sanctions. But the deal makes that impossible, for three separate but related reasons.</blockquote>Read the rest as he explains how the agreement guts all possibility of reimposing sanctions. The result is weakening any possibility of imposing sanctions on other countries. The more I read about this deal, the more depressed I get.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />I'm surprised that the Democrats took<a href="http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Democrats-drop-Thomas-Jefferson-and-Andrew-6400544.php"> this long to get rid of the Jefferson-Jackson dinner.</a> When will they start advocating to change the name of our country's capital city?<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=offtocollege14&banner=0P58ZNASW9X5YYN8JGG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=3JXOQNUYQPGH45MK" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />The NYT's editorial page editor is <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/23/new-york-times-editor-isnt-it-awesome-how-hillarys-stonewalling-the-press/">quite laudatory about how Hillary Clinton is stonewalling the press. </a> <blockquote>In a podcast posted on the New York Times website earlier this week, the paper’s editorial page editor openly praised Hillary Clinton’s strategy of stonewalling the media and refusing to answer questions about her campaign.<br /><br />“How do you think this crazy pack of Republican candidates and the level of their conversation has made the race for Hillary?” Susan Lehman, the podcast’s host, asked editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal about six minutes into their discussion.<br /><br />“I think she’s basically ignoring it, which is extremely intelligent,” he responded. “And this is going to sound rather strange coming from a journalist,” Rosenthal added, apparently referring to himself, “but she’s also ignoring the press which I don’t think is such a terrible idea.”<br /><br />“I don’t think [Hillary Clinton’s] not talking to the press is an issue,” Rosenthal continued. “Sincerely, who cares?”</blockquote>When it comes to supporting the media or a Democrat, I guess politics trumps his concern about the media. That explains a lot about the NYT's editorial page.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Are you ready for the<a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ON_THE_MONEY_HOUSE_CALLS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-07-22-12-24-44"> Uber approach to health care?</a><blockquote>House calls were once commonplace in the U.S. Today, 9 out of 10 general practitioners say they do not typically make house calls, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians.<br /><br />But new phone apps may signal a comeback for house calls.<br /><br />Pager is currently only available in New York City but it will expand to San Francisco in coming weeks. A rival company on the West Coast, Heal, already operates in San Francisco, Orange County and L.A<br /><br />Gaspard de Dreuzy, one of Pager's three co-founders, says the services' typical customers are working mothers ages 30 to 45.<br /><br />"It's really an urban population that is busy and values its time," he adds.<br /><br />So much so that they are willing to pay a premium. Like other services, Pager is not currently covered by insurance. Customers pay a $50 fee for their first visit and $200 for subsequent visits from one of the company's 40 health practitioners, including doctors, nurses and physician assistants.<br /><br />That fee is about 10 times more than the typical $15 to $25 doctor co-pay for patients with insurance. But there are situations where a Pager visit might be cheaper than conventional care. For instance, $200 is significantly cheaper than the median cost of an emergency room visit: $505, according to federal figures. The ER is often the only medical option for people without insurance.<br /><br />"We're trying to move forward to a model where the Pager service will be as affordable as any other care option for people who are insured or not," de Dreuzy says.<br /><br />But Some doctors are skeptical.<br /><br />Dr. Robert Wergin of Milford, Nebraska says on-call services could be useful for one-time medical needs. But treating chronic conditions like diabetes, arthritis or Alzheimer's requires careful, consistent attention over many years. A doctor responding to a phone app may not be familiar with a patient's family history, medications, allergies and other critical details.</blockquote>I'm always ready for innovation. There is no reason why we have to get health care in the same way we always do. Let's give the new approach a try and see if people like it.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421466/print">Jonah Goldberg has some advice </a>for Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton and what they can learn fro observing Donald Trump.<blockquote>Back in the real campaign, there’s an interesting lesson in Trump’s ineluctable fate. For months I’ve argued that Jeb Bush is the weakest of the top-tier candidates to take on Hillary Rodham Clinton. When you have a competition between two brands, the better brand tends to win. The Clinton brand is simply much more popular than the Bush brand, for reasons we all know.<br /><br />Jeb’s last name is a problem he can transcend by being himself. Hillary’s last name is an asset she damages whenever she’s herself.<br />And that’s still true. But a brand is also strongest in the abstract. A Clinton may beat a Bush, but voters won’t be asked to vote for “a Clinton”; they’ll be asked to vote for a specific Clinton, namely Hillary. Jeb’s last name is a problem he can transcend by being himself. Hillary’s last name is an asset she damages whenever she’s herself.<br /><br />We saw something similar with John Kerry in 2004. People liked Kerry in the abstract — military veteran, long-serving senator, etc. — but as a person, not so much. His state poll numbers often went down when he campaigned and went up when he took a vacation. Clinton is extremely popular when she is an abstraction. But the polls show that the more voters see the real person, the less they like her — or trust her.<br /><br />She’s still an obvious favorite for the nomination, but it’s telling that the Clinton campaign is already trying to lower expectations for the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses, suggesting that Bernie Sanders might win some early bouts.<br /><br />The point is that personality matters a lot, and no one would confuse Clinton’s personality for a secret weapon. It’s been a cliché for three decades for Clinton’s defenders to say, “If only you could know the Hillary I know.” That’s an unintentionally damning defense. It may be true that she’s a wonderful friend to her friends, but as a candidate, she is a remarkably uninspiring, un-charming, and un-compelling woman who has every bit as much of a problem connecting to ordinary people as Mitt Romney did. Indeed, like Romney, she has polled poorly (June, CNN) on the question of whether she “cares about people like you.”<br /><br />In truth, Bush is not a contender for the role of “Most Interesting Man in the World” in those Dos Equis commercials, either. But he is showing himself to be a grown-up who is neither easily rattled nor interested in pandering to the crowd. He can get ahead of his family name in a way Clinton clearly cannot. Moreover, nearly all of the other GOP contenders have transparently better retail political skills than Clinton does.<br /><br />Donald Trump stakes much of his fortune on the alleged value of the Trump brand. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy rests on a similar assumption about the Clinton name. Both fail to take into account the fact that personality trumps brand.</blockquote><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br />As Robert Ehrlich, the former GOP governor of Maryland details, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421458/print">there are a lot of lies underlying Obama's presidency.</a><blockquote>On the Iranian threat to Israel: “The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat. . . . Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.”<br /><br />On health care: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan.”<br /><br />On Syria’s WMD: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime — but also to other players on the ground — that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”<br /><br />On capitalism: “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”<br /><br />On religious freedom: “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.”<br /><br />On immigration: “They’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol, or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat.”<br /><br />On world public opinion: “People don’t remember, but when I came into office, the United States in world opinion ranked below China and just barely above Russia, and today once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth.”<br /><br />On Benghazi: “Here’s what happened. . . . You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam . . . making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.”<br /><br />I don’t believe him.<br /><br />I understand he is the president of the United States, a position that should warrant presumptive trust regardless of one’s philosophical or partisan identification. But I cannot start with a presumption of trust when it comes to this president, the former true-believing community organizer whose word has proven to be vapid or even patently false on so many important issues. You see, this president is the classic progressive — far more classic than the Clintons, for whom truth is purely situational: only good as long as it fits their purpose, and then on to Plan B.<br /><br />What makes Barack Obama the real progressive is that he truly believes that his great willpower magically transforms his pronouncements. Indeed, his mere will makes them accurate — especially if he repeats them enough — despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.</blockquote>Sadly, people don't seem to care that he regularly lies to the American people. Supporters like <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/07/23/chris-matthews-obama-has-had-immaculate-presidency-with-no-corruption-allegations/">Chris Matthews apparently believe </a>that he has "been immaculate in the presidency" because "[n]obody has accused him of any corruption." Please, Chris, get out of your bubble. <br /><br />Just this week, he went on "The Daily Show" and lied about <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2015/07/22/obama-outrageously-denies-irs-targeting-scandal-daily-show-nets#.r3ttzv:nqZ3">the IRS scandal</a>. As Jay Sekulow, who is defending some of the groups targeted by the IRS,<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/07/22/jay-sekulow-sets-record-straight-obamas-laughable-denial-irs"> explained the President </a>is either uninformed or lying.<blockquote>Yeah, well, a U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia has acknowledged the targeting scheme. And here's the other thing. The president keeps saying that it never happened, but Lois Lerner admitted it happened. She said that they targeted based on names and policy positions....<br /><br />But here's the reality. Let's look at what we do know. Regardless of the emails that we can't find, we do know from emails that we have found that in fact Lois Lerner was in cahoots with the Department of Justice to, in their words, quote, "piece together" — this is what she said — "potential criminal cases" against our clients for exercising their freedom of speech.<br /><br />So the President should not have said what he said. But he's been doing this — he did it with Bill O'Reilly. He did this, he's always — he's in a state of denial. His own Justice Department is supposedly still investigating this criminally. So I guess the President's playing prosecutor and jury here. But it's his IRS that has done this, and they should be held accountable.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/23/judicial-watch-irs-e-mails-linked-donor-lists-to-audit-targeting/">Judicial Watch recently</a> received <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-irs-documents-used-donor-lists-to-target-audits/">documents from the IRS </a>that expose how corrupt their targeting of conservative groups was.<blockquote>udicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that confirm that the IRS used donor lists to tax-exempt organizations to target those donors for audits. The documents also show IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under “high scrutiny” from the IRS. The IRS produced the records in a Freedom of Information lawsuit seeking documents about selection of individuals for audit-based application information on donor lists submitted by Tea Party and other 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations (Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:15-cv-00220)).<br /><br />A letter dated September 28, 2010, then-Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) informs then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman: “ I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations …” In reply, in a letter dated February 17, 2011, Shulman writes: “In the work plan of the Exempt Organizations Division, we announced that beginning in FY2011, we are increasing our focus on section 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations.”<br /><br />In 2010, after receiving Baucus’s letter, the IRS considered the issue of auditing donors to 501(c)(4) organizations, alleging that a 35 percent gift tax would be due on donations in excess of $13,000. The documents show that the IRS wanted to cross-check donor lists from 501(c)(4) organizations against gift tax filings and commence audits against taxpayers based on this information.<br /><br />A gift tax on contributions to 501(c)(4)’s was considered by most to be a dead letter since the IRS had never enforced the rule after the Supreme Court ruled that such taxes violated the First Amendment. The documents show that the IRS had not enforced the gift tax since 1982.<br /><br />But then, in February 2011, at least five donors of an unnamed organization were audited.</blockquote>But I guess the MSM is uninterested in the IRS being used to target ideological opponents of the administration.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421497/print">Thomas Sowell looks </a>at policy proposals by progressives that have the opposite effect of what they're supposed to have. But actual consequences are irrelevant to those who want to feel good about what they're pushing and to reap the political rewards.<blockquote>But people who advocate minimum-wage laws seldom show any interest in the actual consequences of such laws, which include many idle young males on the streets, which does no good for them or for their communities.<br /><br />Advocates talk about people who make minimum wages as if they were a permanent class of people. In reality, most are young, inexperienced workers, and no one stays young permanently.<br />Advocates talk about people who make minimum wages as if they were a permanent class of people. In reality, most are young, inexperienced workers, and no one stays young permanently. But they can stay inexperienced for a very long time, damaging their prospects of getting a job and increasing their chances of getting into trouble, hanging out with other idle and immature males.<br /><br />There is the same liberal zeal for government intervention in housing markets, and the same lack of interest in checking out what the actual consequences are for the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of government housing policies, whether as tenants or home buyers.<br /><br />Government pressures and threats forced mortgage lenders to lower their lending standards, to allow more low-income and minority applicants to qualify. But, after the housing boom became a bust, the biggest losers were low-income and minority home buyers, who were unable to keep up the payments and lost everything — which was the very reason they were turned down before lending standards were lowered.<br /><br />Rent-control laws have led to housing shortages in cities around the world. More than a thousand apartment buildings have been abandoned by their owners in New York alone — more than enough to house all the homeless in the city.<br /><br />High tax rates on “the rich” — however defined — are an ever popular crusade on the left. Who cares about the consequences — such as the rich investing their money overseas, where it will create jobs and economic growth in other countries, while American workers are unemployed and American economic growth is anemic?<br /><br />All these policies allow the political Left to persist in their fact-free visions. And those visions in turn allow the Left to feel good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake.</blockquote>Sadly, the sloganeering surrounding a push to increase the minimum wage or impose rent-control laws or tax the rich is much easier to make than explaining the real-life consequences of such actions.Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-63589156402595564052015-07-23T07:21:00.000-04:002015-07-23T11:56:16.483-04:00Cruising the WebWhile we focus on important issues like Iran and immigration and spend time perusing the latest meaningless poll ratings, let's not forget <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/social-security-disability-program-to-go-bust-in-2016/article/2568759">the fiscal disasters that our entitlement programs are facing.</a><blockquote>The Social Security disability program will run out of money in late 2016, a report issued Wednesday by the Social Security and Medicare trustees warned.<br /><br />At that point, the 10.9 million beneficiaries of the program face an immediate 19 percent cut in benefits, unless Congress intervenes.<br /><br />The combined trust fund for the retirement and disability programs is projected to run out by 2034, a slight improvement from last year's estimate.<br /><br />The trust fund for Medicare hospital insurance will be depleted by 2030, unchanged from last year.</blockquote>Sure, but that's all down the road, so why should our nation's leaders do anything about it today?<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />Michael Barone writes that, despite all the attention on splits within the Republican Party, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/increasingly-divided-democrats-causing-problems-for-their-party/article/2568786">the Democrats are facing some dangerous fissures themselves.</a><blockquote>"It would be a terrible mistake for the progressive movement to split into a 'black lives matter' movement and an 'economic justice' movement," laments Clinton administration labor secretary Robert Reich. But the fact is that the different priorities of gentry liberals and black activists, two heavily Democratic constituencies, are sparking heated arguments.<br /><br />There may be some heated arguments as well over how to respond to the recently released videos of high Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of fetal body parts. The blithe statements that fetus's bodies should be crushed in ways preserving the option of selling livers, hearts and lungs for $30 to $100 strikes many as grisly....<br /><br />The 2012 Obama campaign appealed to single women by suggesting that without Obamacare's contraception mandate, contraceptives would somehow be unavailable — a favorable way to frame the abortion issue. But the Planned Parenthood videos are, in the words of Democratic columnist Kirsten Powers, "stomach-turning stuff."<br /><br />....Then there is the issue of sanctuary cities, highlighted by the murder July 1 of Kate Steinle by a five-times-deported illegal immigrant whom the San Francisco sheriff set free rather than turn over to federal authorities.<br /><br />Democrats have defended sanctuary city policies by arguing that illegal immigrants won't cooperate with law enforcement if they're afraid of being deported. But for some, the San Francisco murder was too much. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, with evident sincerity, decried San Francisco's action. So, perhaps more tactically, did Hillary Clinton.<br /><br />But some Hispanic leaders and liberal city officials defend sanctuary city policies. And so, as congressional Republicans press the issue, Democrats are likely to be split.<br /><br />It is natural for a party's wingers — right-wing Republicans or left-wing Democrats — to be restive near the end of their party's president's second term. They take his accomplishments for granted and lament goals not achieved. Barack Obama's increasingly leftward lurch has encouraged the party's left wingers to angrily air their views, often in terms unappealing to those outside their narrow groups.<br /><br />The result is tension between the party's major constituencies and a highlighting of positions unpopular with the larger general electorate. Shouting down speakers who say "all lives matter" is not popular. Neither is the sale of fetal organs. Nor are sanctuary cities.<br /><br />Republicans certainly have their problems — not all of them surnamed Trump. But so do the increasingly divided Democrats.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/21/planned-parenthood-videos-should-appall-even-pro-choice-advocates/TsR6dAxo82rQkLFD7W72lN/story.html">Jeff Jacoby explains</a> why the Planned Parenthood videos are so very troubling.<blockquote>But it isn’t illegality that makes this video so scandalous. It is amorality. It is the nonchalance with which Planned Parenthood’s senior medical director schmoozes, between swigs of wine and forkfuls of salad, about dismembering a healthy unborn child and selling its parts for “anywhere from $30 to $100” apiece. It is the sheer indifference to the enormity of destroying life in the womb and then “donating” the wreckage for money....<br /><br />You don’t have to be a pro-life activist to be sickened by such ghoulish banality. Even abortion-rights advocates — especially abortion-rights advocates — should insist that abortion and its aftermath be treated with the gravest dignity and respect. For nothing turns hearts and minds against the culture of abortion than its tendency to dehumanize. And could anything be more dehumanizing than the reduction of an unborn baby to its parts? Well, yes: the sight of abortion providers confirming, over lunch, how much less that baby was worth alive than its parts are now that it’s dead.</blockquote>I bet that Planned Parenthood is rushing to find out how many more of their employees had lunches discussing selling baby body parts. I suspect that there are quite a few more of such videos. The Center for Medical Progress seems to be adopting a strategy of releasing the videos gradually while allowing Planned Parenthood to keep making denials without knowing what might be in any other videos.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/21/planned-parenthood-abortion-fetus-parts-kirsten-powers/30426475/">Kirsten Powers notes</a> how silent Planned Parenthood's usual defenders have been.<blockquote>It’s a measure of how damning the video is that Planned Parenthood’s usual defenders were nowhere to be found. There was total silence from The New York Times editorial board and their 10 (out of 11) pro-abortion rights columnists. Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi — both recipients of Planned Parenthood’s highest honor, the Margaret Sanger Award — have been mum. But a few loyalists took up the cause, including Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak, whose column was headlined: “Planned Parenthood deserves to be supported, not attacked.” Actually, it's fetuses who are under attack. By Planned Parenthood.<br /><br />Dvorak invoked a common defense against the barbarism of late-term abortion: “The details are gruesome, as are many medical procedures and how doctors and nurses tell stories about the operating room.” But nobody is morally repulsed by stories of heart transplants.<br /><br />Mississippi abortion doctor Willie Parker — who was lauded by Esquire for his “abortion ministry” — ran with the trope that direct quotes from a Planned Parenthood doctor constitute a vicious attack, but went a step further: He compared Nucatola to Jesus. “It's no secret that my frame of reference for the work that I do and in terms of generating compassion is related to my religious understanding and, in particular, my Christian religious understanding,” Parker told Cosmopolitan magazine. “I'm thinking about a strong parallel between what's happening to my colleague (Nucatola) and the trial week of Jesus before he was crucified (as) he was marched from place to place, asked to answer allegations.”<br /><br />When abortion doctors are elevated to gods who may not be questioned or held accountable, society has officially gone off the rails.</blockquote>I predict that Democrats will keep using as their defense that they haven't seen the videos so can't comment. And they'll use this deniability until the media stop asking questions. And based on prior scandals like Dr. Gosnell, the media will quite quickly lose interest.<br /><br />But some <a href="https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/623946938627563520">Democrats have found one aspect</a> of these videos that merit legal investigation.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=offtocollege14&banner=0P58ZNASW9X5YYN8JGG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=3JXOQNUYQPGH45MK" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />With the five-year anniversary of Dodd-Frank, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dodd-frank-was-a-mixed-bag-for-wall-street-all-gain-for-k-street/article/2568697?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20-%2007/22/15&utm_medium=e">we now know the results of that bill.</a><blockquote>First, Dodd-Frank may have chipped away at the Too Big to Fail problem, reducing the subsidy banks enjoy in the form of lower borrowing costs (from lenders who expect a bailout).<br /><br />More concretely, Dodd-Frank has stimulated the economy of Washington, D.C., creating a lucrative industry for bank lawyers, consultants, and the revolving-door lobbyists who helped write the complex legislation and ever-changing rules.</blockquote>It's been a real boon for the law's supporters moving through the revolving door.<blockquote>Barney Frank, the "Frank" of Dodd-Frank, now sits on the board of a bank, thanks to Dodd-Frank. Signature Bank's CEO complained in 2010 that the law would make him "have to hire compliance experts and lawyers and other cost-generating personnel." This year, Frank joined Signature's board, extolling his "32-year career devoted to government and his distinguished expertise in financial services<br /><br />When Amy Friend, Dodd's chief counsel, joined financial consulting firm Promontory, the firm explained that she would help clients with "the regulatory implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which, at 2,300 pages, is one of the most complex and wide-ranging overhauls of the financial regulatory framework in decades."<br /><br />Frank's chief counsel, Daniel Meade, went to K Street giant Hogan Lovells. The firm bragged that he was "a principal draftsperson of substantial portions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform."<br /><br />These are some of the most prominent Dodd-Frank cash-outs, but there are dozens of others. Lawmakers, congressional staffers and federal regulators who wrote, passed and implemented the law are now getting rich helping the regulated live with — and profit from — the law.</blockquote>And, of course, the law has done the exact opposite of stopping the whole "Too Big To Fail" problem.<blockquote>For years after the 2008 bailout, the biggest banks explicitly enjoyed a Too Big To Fail subsidy. They could borrow at lower rates because lenders assumed they would be bailed out if the bank failed.<br /><br />Credit ratings agencies, however, have cut the big banks' ratings in recent years, as they have seen "presumed government support" trickle away. Scholars on the Left and the Right have produced studies suggesting that the TBTF borrowing discount has shrunk (though this conclusion isn't unanimous).</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=No+Economic+Mess+in+Texas&oq=No+Economic+Mess+in+Texas&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2.1215j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">Texas keeps prospering </a>and it is not all due to oil.<blockquote>A funny thing has happened to the economic miracle in Texas that liberals predicted would go bust along with oil prices. America’s foremost state job creator of the past decade continues to produce opportunity and employment.<br /><br />Last week’s “beige book” release from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas shows that despite the struggling oil and gas industry, the Texas economy is still enjoying moderate growth. Since prices in the oil patch began sliding a year ago, pundits on the political left have been waiting for evidence to declare the Texas model a failure. They’re still waiting.<br /><br />Last month the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that in 2014 the Texas economy grew by a sizzling 5.2%, second fastest in the country after North Dakota’s 6.3% and more than twice the U.S. average. That followed 5.5% growth in 2013 and 6.2% in 2012. And 2014 was the year oil prices fell to $53 a barrel in December from more than $107 in June. The Texas rig count in May was down 58% from a year ago.</blockquote>So what excuse will blue state politicians use now to pooh pooh Texas's economy.<br /><br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />But of course. <a href="http://pagesix.com/2015/07/20/the-truth-behind-dan-rathers-exit-from-cbs/">Robert Redford is going to make a movie about Rathergate, </a>the 60 Minutes story alleging that George W. Bush used connections to evade his National Guard service responsibilities and avoid Vietnam. Of course, the movie, titled "Truth, ignores <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy">the actual truth </a>that the documents were unsubstantiated and the reporting had been incredibly shoddy. Bloggers had been able to figure out pretty quickly that the documents were forgeries. According to Dan Rather, it was all a plot by Sumner Redstone to get Bush reelected. Because, you know, CBS has always been a Republican tool.<br /><br />Redford is going to play Rather so that tell you all you need to know about his approach to the movie. Sounds like a winner, doesn't it? And it also shows how movies can twist history. The average people probably doesn't remember anything about this incident that any conservative paying attention in 2004 remembers quite clearly. So, in the end, most people will remember the Redford take on the incident regardless of the lack of truth in "Truth."<br /><br />I wonder how young voters like the way that the Democrats work to block "app economy." As <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Uber+Crashes+the+Democratic+Party&oq=Uber+Crashes+the+Democratic+Party&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2.1564j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">William McGurn writes, </a><blockquote>It is an axiom of modern American life: Offer a new service that is wildly popular with the public, and sooner or later you will find yourself labeled an enemy of the people.<br /><br />The latest target is Uber, the app-based ride-sharing service that since its launch in San Francisco just five years ago has expanded to more than 300 cities across the globe. Here in New York, Uber is now locked in combat with the city’s progressive mayor, Bill de Blasio. In a Sunday op-ed for the Daily News, Mr. de Blasio said he aims to freeze Uber’s expansion until his regulators can figure out how best to block any attempts to “skirt vital protections and oversight.”<br /><br />The mayor’s call to arms comes only days after Hillary Clinton used her big speech on economics to sound a similarly dismal note. Though she didn’t mention Uber by name, the Democratic Party’s leading contender for the 2016 presidential nomination fretted that while the “gig economy” may be “exciting” and “unleashing innovation,” “it is also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.”</blockquote>Here are exciting new developments that allow people to get a product more cheaply and more conveniently than previously when union donors do the Democratic Party had a monopoly. The people working for Uber have a way to supplement their income on a schedule that fits their lives. When it comes to protecting their union supporters, Democrats like de Blasio and Hillary Clinton are quite happy to block innovation. As McGurn writes, this is one type of choice that Democrats can't tolerate.<blockquote>However these battles end, the attacks it faces are no accident. They have two chief causes: First, innovative new business models always threaten traditional constituencies, and many of these are Democratic. In New York, for example, Airbnb may be even more disruptive than Uber, because by providing a way for apartment dwellers to make some money by renting out their homes, it is also enabling visitors to make an end run around the high taxes and labor costs (think hotel unions) that help make a hotel room in the Big Apple so pricey.<br /><br />Perhaps even more important, innovation by its nature challenges the inner-Elizabeth Warren in so much of today’s Democratic Party. However open Democrats may be to revolutionary new definitions of marriage, the thought that there might be some nonsexual for-profit contracts between consenting adults keeps progressives up at night. So when a business like Uber’s prospers because its model doesn’t quite fit the established regulatory categories, the Democratic response is almost always to try to pound these new square pegs into the government’s old round holes.<br /><br />It’s not just the sharing economy, either. From charter schools to finance to the Internet, the dominant Democratic impulse is to tax or regulate—or, in an ideal world, both. </blockquote>And de Blasio has ticked off <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/22/even-kate-upton-is-furious-with-bill-de-blasio/">Ashton Kutcher and Kate Upton.</a> Uber is fighting back by <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-just-threw-down-the-gauntlet-to-new-york-citys-mayor-2015-7">pointing out how Uber helps minority communities.</a> <blockquote>Uber sent a video to its New York City customers last week, urging them to tell Mayor de Blasio that they oppose the proposed legislation, which the company asserts would "strand" underserved minority communities in the city's outer boroughs.<br /><br />This idea — of Uber as a service that helps minority communities where taxis would otherwise avoid picking them up — has been repeated by a number of people who oppose the proposed legislation, like Ron Busby, the CEO of the US Black Chambers.<br /><br />Uber is doubling down on fighting the proposed legislation. The company offered free UberPool rides to its New York City customers to attend a pro-Uber protest at New York's City Hall last month.</blockquote>Thankfully, common sense won out as the <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Uber+1%2C+Progressives+0&oq=Uber+1%2C+Progressives+0&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.1855j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">New York City Council failed </a>to muster enough votes to implement de Blasio's efforts to help his donors.<blockquote>The real motivation was taxi interests. The price of New York taxi licenses, known locally as medallions, has dropped nearly a quarter in recent years from a high of $1.3 million in 2013, as more consumers switch to summoning a car on a smartphone instead of hailing a cab. This is called competition, and taxis want to recoup market share by stifling alternatives.<br /><br />Mayor de Blasio and the far-left City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito went along for the ride despite their supposedly progressive politics. It must be a coincidence, comrade, that the yellow taxi industry has lavished campaign contributions on both of them.</blockquote>De Blasio's failure is a victory for innovation and consumers.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/trump-voters-are-hillary-clintons-new-best-friends-120466_full.html#.VbAt__lVhBc">Rick Wilson has some thoughts </a>for fans of Donald Trump.<blockquote>I know that Trump fans reserve special scorn and disdain for people in my line of work—card-carrying members of the Republican establishment, that dreaded political consultant class that is so clearly to blame for Barack Obama’s presidency and all that is wrong with the Grand Old Party. It would be just so much easier to have The Donald as president without this messy election business. But Trump supporters need to wake up before they help elect another Clinton.<br /><br />So excuse me if I speak out of turn. Here, Trump enthusiasts, is what I’m hearing you say, and why you’re Hillary Clinton’s new best friends:<br /><br />1. You’re angry as Hell, and by God, you’re going to teach the GOP a lesson. Even if it means (and it well may) that Hillary Clinton sits in the White House, names 3 or 4 Supreme Court justices and lets Bill run around the East Wing molesting the help, you’re going to teach the hated Establishment a lesson by becoming Trump Super Fans, even if he runs as a third party candidate and guarantees Her victory....<br /><br />3. You think we’re dismissing the message, but we’re dismissing the messenger. Yes, opinions in Washington vary widely over immigration. Yes, they aren’t what most of you seem to want: a mile-high wall made of solid steel with auto-firing laser turrets every six feet and mass deportation roundups of 13 million people. Yes, the presence of illegal alien criminals is an outrage. The presence of sanctuary cities is a legal travesty. Donald Trump is not the man to fix these problems. If you think he’s a man of his word, look at the creditors in his multiple “strategic” bankruptcy filings, or the victims of his bogus “Trump U” scam and tell me you think he’ll really deliver on his ludicrous promises.<br /><br />4. You don’t care about his record. It’s an ideological train-wreck of epic proportions if you care about any conservative values. He’s been pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax hikes, pro-single-payer and is a past master of crony capitalism, to say nothing of his political and financial support for the Clintons and Barack Obama. It’s a mess. You’d never give any other candidate the benefit of the doubt on such a wide portfolio of positions that have changed 180 degrees and back again so many times. And yet, I imagine you can drill into Marco Rubio’s or Jeb Bush’s or even Scott Walker’s record for some sign of apostasy that you can never, ever, ever forgive....<br /><br />6. You don’t know and don’t care why the professionals want Trump in the rear-view mirror. It’s not because we hate you or look down on you. It’s not because we want to elect RINO X. It’s not because the Evil Establishment wants to turn the Southwest into Aztlan. It’s because Donald Trump is not electable. He is the surest guarantor of Hillary Clinton’s election. If I were working for Hillary, I couldn’t think of a better weapon than Donald Trump to blow up the GOP, damage the conservative movement and put Hillary behind the Resolute Desk. And that’s not even factoring in a 3rd party run on Trump’s part.</blockquote>He makes a lot of good points. I wish those excited about Trump would pay attention.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Feel comforted by Obama's and Kerry's assurances that a 24-day period is no big deal for inspections of Iranian nuclear sites? Well, don't rest easy. <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Iran+Inspections+in+24+Days%3F+Not+Even+Close&oq=Iran+Inspections+in+24+Days%3F+Not+Even+Close&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2j69i61.1215j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8"> It's all bogus.</a><blockquote>A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more.<br /><br />Paragraphs 74 to 78 govern the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access to suspect sites. First, the IAEA tells Iran “the basis” of its concerns about a particular location, requesting clarification. At this point Iran will know where the IAEA is headed. Iran then provides the IAEA with “explanations” to resolve IAEA concerns. This stage has no time limit.<br /><br />Opportunities for delay abound. Iran will presumably want to know what prompted the IAEA’s concern. The suspect site identified by the IAEA is likely to be remote, and Iran will no doubt say that it must gather skilled people and equipment to responsibly allay IAEA concerns. Iran may offer explanations in stages, seeking IAEA clarifications before “completing” its response. That could take a while.</blockquote>The delays can go on and on.<blockquote>So from the moment the IAEA first tips its hand about what it wants to inspect, likely three or more months may pass. All along, the Joint Commission is required to act in “good faith,” and to make only “minimum necessary” requests limited to verification, not “interference.” Tehran could also cite these terms to challenge particular requests.<br /><br />The description of this process is based on the English-language text of the nuclear agreement. The text lacks a provision that it is the entire agreement, so Iran may claim support in supposed side agreements or statements during negotiations.</blockquote>Still feeling confident and comforted by Obama and Kerry's assurances?Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-14051071876604151902015-07-22T07:12:00.000-04:002015-07-22T07:12:00.203-04:00Cruising the WebThe NYT has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/21/upshot/election-2015-the-first-gop-debate-and-the-role-of-chance.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1">this entertaining interactive look </a>at which of the GOP candidates would be in or out of the August 6 debate. While a lot of people have complained about the idea of taking only the top 10 in the polls for the Fox debate, but it's added a bit of interest for what might otherwise be a nothingburger of an event. What Kevin Quealy and Amanda Cox point out in their NYT story is that, given the problems with political polling these days, there is quite a deal of chance involved in determining who gets in and who doesn't. What about the margin of error? What about rounding? Their interactive allows us to check out who might not make it if the mragin of error went the other way.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Iran+Deal%E2%80%99s+Collapsing+Rationale&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS645US645&oq=The+Iran+Deal%E2%80%99s+Collapsing+Rationale&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3.527j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">Bret Stephens explains</a> how the rationale for the Iran deal has already collapsed.<blockquote>The Iran deal is supposed to prevent a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East. So what better way to get that ball of hopefulness rolling than by arming our regional allies to the teeth?<br /><br />“The U.S. is specifically looking at ways to expedite arms transfers to Arab states in the Persian Gulf and is accelerating plans for them to develop an integrated regional ballistic missile defense capability,” the Journal’s Carol Lee and Gordon Lubold reported Monday. The goal, they add, is to prevent the Saudis “from trying to match Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.”<br /><br />Let’s follow this logic. If the Iran deal is as fail-safe as President Obama claims, why not prove it by giving the Saudis exactly the same nuclear rights that Iran is now to enjoy? Why race to prevent an ally from developing a capability we have just ceded to an enemy? What’s the point of providing the Saudis with defense capabilities they presumably don’t need?<br /><br />A hypochondriac convinced he has cancer isn’t usually offered a course of chemotherapy. What we have here is ObamaCare for Arabia.<br /><br />The deal is also supposed to preserve the options of a future U.S. president in the event that Iran should go for a bomb. On this point, the president is explicit. “If, in a worst-case scenario, Iran violates the deal,” he said last week, “the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. president in the future.”<br /><br />Here the claim is false by the president’s own admission. The promise of the deal is that it is supposed to give the world at least a year’s notice that Iran is seeking a bomb. But once the terms of the deal expire, so does the notice period. “At that point,” Mr. Obama acknowledged to NPR’s Steve Inskeep, “the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.” That’s not true today.<br /><br />On Thursday, Moscow confirmed that it will proceed with the sale to Iran of its state-of-the-art S-300 surface-to-air missile system, notwithstanding the deal’s supposed five-year arms embargo on Iran and over no objections from the White House. The sale means that a future president ordering airstrikes against Iran would do so against an adversary that can shoot American planes out of the skies. That’s also not true today.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-17/where-the-u-s-caved-to-get-iran-to-sign">Eli Lake outlines the parts of the Iran deal </a>where the U.S. caved in to Iran.<blockquote>But if you compare the deal today with what was described in a White House fact sheet on the "framework" reached in April it shows that the West ceded a lot of ground to Iran in those final days in Vienna....<br /><br />For example, in April the White House touted that, "Iran has committed indefinitely to not conduct reprocessing or reprocessing research and development on spent nuclear fuel." Yet the new pact will allow Iran to reprocess such fuel after 15 years. The final agreement says Iran can begin production of efficient advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium in eight years. The April fact sheet strongly implied research into advanced centrifuges would be delayed for 10 years.<br /><br />Senior administration officials in April said the nuclear agreement would allow inspectors "anytime, anywhere" access to suspected nuclear sites, but the new deal will give Iran 24 days' notice of any inspections, as well as a say in whether inspectors will be able to visit certain sites at all. The U.S. also agreed in the final days of talks to lift a U.N. conventional weapons embargo on Iran in five years, and to end sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program in eight, both issues on which the framework deal is silent.<br /><br />More concerns arise from the "road map" that the International Atomic Energy Agency released Tuesday, on how it will resolve longstanding questions about the history of Iran's efforts to build a nuclear weapon. First, the description of how it plans to do so is dangerously vague. Equally important: Until May, the U.S. position was that Iran had to come clean about that history before there would be any sanctions relief. Now that issue has been shunted aside in terms of lifting sanctions.<br /><br />While it's true that the April deal was only a framework, and that some changes should have been expected, all these concessions taken together represent a retreat by the U.S. team since the spring. "The fact sheet allowed just enough wiggle room to give the impression that nothing had been conceded in Lausanne," Valerie Lincy, the executive director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, told me. "But when I read the agreement, it's clear there are things that have been conceded in terms of the details on advanced centrifuges, reprocessing of plutonium and the inspections."</blockquote>And the list goes on and on.<br /><br />And of course, our partner in peace, <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/iran-of-course-well-continue-to-support-terrorists.php">Iran asserts that they will continue to support their terrorist allies.</a> Why should they stop? There clearly will be no penalty for doing so. And Obama and his European counterparts have just insured that they'll have over $100 billion to spread among their terrorist pals.<br /><br />And Khamenei isn't showing the U.S. any love.<blockquote>According to reports, the podium where Khamenei spoke on Friday featured the Persian-language message reading, “We will trample upon America,” with the English phrase “We Defeat the United States” below it.<br /><br />“Our policy toward the arrogant U.S. government won’t change at all,” Khamenei said in the speech, which marked the end of the Ramadan holiday. “We have no negotiations with America about various global and regional issues. We have no negotiations on bilateral issues.”</blockquote><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/john-kerry-react-ali-khamenei-remarks-120398.html">John Kerry finds this "disturbing," </a>and doesn't "know how to interpret it at this point in time," but he's hoping that this was just red meat for public consumption. What Kerry misses, apparently, is that there is no incentive for Khamenei to change his <br /><br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=offtocollege14&banner=0P58ZNASW9X5YYN8JGG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=3JXOQNUYQPGH45MK" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Avoiding+the+Trump+Trap+on+Immigration&oq=Avoiding+the+Trump+Trap+on+Immigration&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.1368j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">Fred Barnes looks to successful 2014 GOP Senate campaigns </a>to look for hints how Republicans can do better among Hispanics.<blockquote>When Cory Gardner was persuaded by national Republican leaders to run for the Senate in Colorado against incumbent Democrat Mark Udall, he was a latecomer to the race. Mr. Gardner was a one-term House member and the 2014 midterm election was eight months away. And it was soon discovered from a U.S. Chamber of Commerce poll that Mr. Gardner had a problem: Colorado’s population is 22% Hispanic and the poll found that Mr. Gardner was supported by only 11% of Hispanic voters, a dismal showing.<br /><br />Mr. Gardner says he was “unknown to the Hispanic community” yet determined to increase his visibility. He appeared at Hispanic events. He was respectful of Hispanic values and sympathetic with difficulties facing Hispanic families. He advertised on Spanish-language radio and TV. Jeb Bush cut a TV spot for him in Spanish, Marco Rubio one in English. Mr. Gardner advocated immigration reform that included beefed-up border security and a guest-worker program.<br /><br />There were important things Mr. Gardner <i>didn’t </i>do. He didn’t call for a special path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Nor did he identify himself with liberal positions, such as broader spending and welfare policies, that Hispanics supposedly favor.<br /><br />His support soared among Hispanics. Exit poll data for Hispanics on election day is not available, but in an Oct. 26 NBC/Marist Poll, he was favored by 44% of Hispanics to Mr. Udall’s 48%. In an Oct. 30 Denver Post/SurveyUSA poll, Mr. Gardner trailed Mr. Udall among Hispanics by only three points, 43% to 46%. And he did well in two of Colorado’s most heavily Hispanic counties, with 45% of the overall vote in Pueblo and 44% in Adams. By any reckoning, this was a remarkable achievement by Mr. Gardner and a shock to Democrats.</blockquote>Well, of course Udall was an exceptionally bad candidate who spent his time concentrating on women's issues. And the electorate during a presidential year is going to be quite different from the electorate during a midterm election. But Barnes is right that there are models out there that Republicans can follow to appeal to Hispanics without sacrificing conservative ideals.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.politico.eu/article/western-lit-shot-to-death-by-trigger-warnings/">Michael Mohnihan writes in Politico</a> how the sensitivities of today's tender flowers in universities is slowing eating away at the western canon of literature as these moral weaklings demand trigger warnings before they can read something that may remind them of something unpleasant.<blockquote>So what exactly is a trigger warning? Precisely that: a label on a work of literature, history, and memoir, designed to forewarn students that what they are about to read might upset them or “trigger” an episode of PTSD. The warning allows psychologically damaged readers to opt out of an assignment, or at least steady a nervous hand while turning pages of a triggering book. One particularly silly American college gave an example of how professors might warn readers that Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe’s celebrated postcolonial novel “Things Fall Apart” could send them into spirals of despair, explaining that “it may trigger readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide, and more.”...<br /><br />Last year, multiple Columbia students objected to the inclusion of Ovid’s 1st century lyric poem “Metamorphoses” in a class devoted to classic Western literature, with one tallying that it contains “roughly 80 instances of assault.” All of them triggering. Indeed, even this tally is an underestimate, she explained, having “treated many of the instances of mass rape on the syllabus as a single data point for simplicity.”<br /><br />Lest you think this is something promoted by silly students but resisted by clever professors, Columbia University last week conceded the point: “Metamorphoses,” that classic of Western literature, has been purged. No trigger warnings, sure, but no more Ovid.<br /><br />In its place, Columbia has selected Toni Morrison’s 1977 novel “Song Of Solomon,” which has frequently been the target of bans in the United States by prissy, anti-intellectual religious types, adding a touch of diversity to the Great Books canon. But Morrison’s more famous novel “Beloved” was not chosen, probably because it’s full of vivid scenes of rape and racism that could be “problematic” for some students.</blockquote>I'm glad that 10th graders at my school can read "Things Fall Apart" without having to have a trigger warning. But somehow the adults in college are too sensitive to read such literature. There is hardly a work of great literature that doesn't have something controversial or disturbing about it. That's what literature explores. My background is in studying Russian literature and I can't think of any work that doesn't include <i>something</i> disturbing. Murder, patricide, suicide, serfdom, adultery, epilepsy, terrorism, nihilism. The list goes on and on. Are university professors truly going to allow these idiot students have the power to censor their syllabi? <br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-goldberg-0719-20150718-story.html">Jonah Goldberg muses about Hillary Clinton's talent </a>for lying.<blockquote>But Mr. [Carl] Bernstein is right about one thing: Hillary is a specialist at lying. And that's a problem for her. Her husband was — and is — a prodigy at deceit, a renaissance man of lying. If football were a game of lies, he could play every position on offense and defense.<br /><br />Mrs. Clinton, alas, is more like a veteran coach — she's adept at telling others how to lie on her behalf. But she's not a natural liar herself, and it shows. At a time when the Democratic base craves authenticity (hence the mobs at Bernie Sanders rallies), Ms. Clinton seems utterly fabricated (hence her inability to get a capacity crowd at her announcement speech last month in New York City). Her best hope now would be to stop pandering to Mr. Sanders' fans and instead explain where she and Mr. Sanders differ on policy. But that would require a level of political authenticity she's forgotten how to fake convincingly.</blockquote><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><a href="https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/623243525535199236">Byron York has some words </a>to buck up Republicans fed up with their party.<blockquote><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If you’re upset over events in GOP, just imagine a party in which a candidate has to apologize for saying ‘All lives matter.’</p>&mdash; Byron York (@ByronYork) <a href="https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/623243525535199236">July 20, 2015</a></blockquote><script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="50" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />I wasn't thrilled to have John Kasich in the race anyway, <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ken-shepherd/2015/07/21/matthews-kasich-people-me-tend-guy-hardball-host-hails-governors">but this can't help him.</a><blockquote>For the second segment of his July 22 Hardball program, MSNBC's Chris Matthews took a brief break from his priority on Trump-bashing to effusively praise the latest GOP presidential primary entrant, Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio), whom he once fantasized on air as accepting a vice presidential nomination from Democrat Hillary Clinton.<br /><br />"He's got a good story to tell, and he could give Jeb Bush a real fight, believe it or not. Watch this guy, he's for real," Matthews effused in a tease to the segment about Kasich's announcement speech.<br /><br />"This is a great moment," Matthews gushed to correspondent Kasie Hunt, who appeared via satellite from Columbus, Ohio. "I think it was a very positive speech at a time when there's a lot of negativity out there."<br /><br />Moments later, Matthews added that he loved how Kasich failed to "give them red meat" nor "blast Obama" in his campaign kick-off but instead spoke a lot about his "personal story" and his extended family: <br /><br /> It was great story time. It sounds like my family, to some extent, but, it was so to me American and positive. That's what I liked about it.<br /><br />But Matthews doesn't simply like Kasich because of his speaking style, his aw-shucks attitude, nor his penchant for storytelling. In a brief follow-up segment, Matthews laid it out pretty plainly in a comment to former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.<br /><br />"People like me tend to like this guy. That's probably why people like you don't,"</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><br /><br />Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-86916231709361580482015-07-21T07:32:00.000-04:002015-07-21T07:32:00.390-04:00Cruising the WebHow <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/19/israeli-minister-blasts-iran-deal-clause-where-the-u-s-helps-iran-protect-nuclear-facilities-against-sabotage/?utm_source=TheBlaze.com&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=story&utm_content=israeli-minister-blasts-iran-deal-clause-where-the-u-s-helps-iran-protect-nuclear-facilities-against-sabotage">nice of the Iran deal </a>to bind the negotiating countries to protect Iran against attack or sabotage of their nuclear facilities. I'm glad that Obama and Kerry are committing us to protecting Iran's nuclear program. As <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/17/obamas_age_of_nuclear_chaos_127423.html">Caroline Glick writes</a>, <blockquote>n other words, if Iran abides by the agreement, or isn’t punished for cheating on it, in 10 years, the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world will be rich, in possession of a modernized military, a ballistic missile arsenal capable of carrying nuclear warheads to any spot on earth, and the nuclear warheads themselves.<br /><br />Facing this new nuclear reality, the states of the region, including Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps the emirates, will likely begin to develop nuclear arsenals. ISIS will likely use the remnants of the Iraqi and Syrian programs to build its own nuclear program.</blockquote>And Obama thinks that this is a breakthrough for peace. Really. <br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/consequences-can-kicking_992486.html">Irwin Stelzer sees a pattern</a> in the big stories of the day. All have been geared to pushing problems off into the future.<blockquote>Two big deals were signed this week, with one thing in common – can-kicking. The Eurozone countries, more precisely Germany, kicked the Greek debt can down the road for three years by lending the already over-indebted country another €86bn. And the P5+1, the permanent members of the UN Security Council + Germany, kicked the problem of a nuclear-armed Iran down the road for what they hope will be at least ten years by agreeing to remove sanctions in return for a temporary halt in the theocracy’s drive for a nuclear weapon with which to cow, or worse, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and annihilate Israel. “In Iran, both reformists and conservatives welcomed the deal, regarding it as a victory that will turn Iran into a regional power,” reports the Financial Times....<br /><br />Among the businesses most affected by the opening of Iran to the global economy are arms manufacturers and oil companies. Iran’s youths might be interested in jeans and Cokes, but the regime is interested in weapons and oil sales. The mullahs will have available some $100bn in unfrozen assets. Obama believes the regime will use those funds to improve the lot of its millions of young people, but critics say it will more likely use that the money to expand Iran’s elite cybercorps, provide Hezbollah and Iran’s other terrorist proxies with more fire power, shore up Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, and to purchase arms for its Quds Force, which handles operations outside of Iran and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, a dedication of which it reminds its followers on annual Quds Day. Russian arms merchants are expected to be the leading suppliers.<br />The newly available $100bn dwarfs the mere $500 million Iran was able to spend on arms last year, as well as the purchases of Iran’s sworn enemies -- $7bn for Saudi Arabia, $4bn for the UAE and $1bn for Oman, according to Ben Moores, a defense analyst at IHS Jane’s. Moores also notes that Iran will be playing catch-up with the size and quality of its enemies’ militaries. Those adversaries won’t cede their advantage easily. Israel and the Arab nations will step up their weapons procurement, to the likely advantage of American and European manufacturers. In addition, the Saudis, confronted with an Iran that will have nuclear weapons, will be shopping in Pakistan for its own nukes. It’s called an arms race, and in a region in which irrationality might well top the restraining force of Mutually Assured Destruction. Iranian leaders once calculated that a nuclear exchange with Israel would wipe out that small nation’s population, but leave Iran with a population of over 70 million.</blockquote><br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=offtocollege14&banner=0P58ZNASW9X5YYN8JGG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=3JXOQNUYQPGH45MK" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />So who is the bigger danger to the fate of his party in 2016: <a href="http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/donald-and-bernie_992204.html">Trump or Sanders?</a><blockquote>Here’s a final point. Donald Trump is a noisemaker, but he’s not a real troublemaker for Republicans, at least for the time being. Chances are, he’ll fade. Bernie Sanders, however, has trouble written all over him for Democrats. The closer Clinton slips into his pocket, the poorer are her prospects for becoming America’s first woman president. And chances are, Sanders won’t fade.</blockquote>I wouldn't be so sure about Sanders not fading and Trump fading no matter how much I hope for both prospects. Trump is still surfing a nice wave of support and name recognition in polls, but there are indications that the wave <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/20/oh-yes-trump-24-walker-13-bush-12-in-new-abcwapo-national-poll/">might have crested</a> after the hullaballoo over his remarks about McCain this weekend. I still have faith that the more people hear about his history of supporting Democrats and liberal positions, people will get over their Trumpmania. <br /><br />The Sanders boomlet has certainly demonstrated how far to the left the Democratic Party has moved. <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Perot+Forma&oq=Perot+Forma&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i60.1168j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">James Taranto writes,</a> <blockquote>The recent Sanders surge shows that the Democratic Party is divided between the left and the far left, but the Netroots kerfuffle demonstrates that the far left is divided—and bitterly so—between practitioners of class politics and identity politics. Barack Obama was able to triangulate between these positions and (to a sufficient extent) between the left and the center, but that came at a cost. “The Obama victory sucked out all the energy of progressive politics in the United States,” Netroots activist Charles Lechner tells the Post’s David Weigel.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/upshot/the-trump-campaigns-turning-point.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1">Nate Cohn argues</a> that Trump's bump in the polls since his announcement is media driven.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dissing-mccain-not-trumps-big-problem-in-iowa/article/2568565">Byron York notes</a> something that I had noted earlier about Trump's appearance at the Family Leadership Summit - his answer about asking God for forgiveness was not one that would appeal to Christian conservatives. York posts the entire answer and the rest of his response to a question from Frank Luntz about his relationship with God and goes on and on about being smart and making a lot of money and doing well at the Wharton School of Finance and making a lot of money. <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/20/trump-to-iowa-evangelicals-im-not-sure-ive-ever-asked-god-for-forgiveness/">Allahpundit posts the video of that answer.</a> Check out his <a href="https://youtu.be/A3l0e6nS9oI?t=2m">response to that question </a>starting at about 2 minutes and note the absolute egotism of his answer. I takes him less than seven seconds to transition to talking about praying and going to church to how successful and smart he is. I'm not Christian and I'm not religions, but I find the egotism of that response so offensive; I just can't imagine what a religious person would think. And religious conservatives are a big part of the electorate in the Iowa GOP. With so many other worthwhile candidates out there for religious conservatives are they going to go for someone who defines his relationship with God by how much money he made and the good grades he got in grad school? Ugh.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/20/ideas-for-reporters-struggling-to-cover-planned-parenthood/">Mollie Hemingway is amused</a> at how the media seem to be having trouble coming up with new story ideas in covering the Planned Parenthood story.<blockquote>A few reporters wrote an initial story on the undercover video that caught the senior director for medical services at Planned Parenthood discussing the harvesting of organs from the unborn children killed by abortion. Another few reporters noted early political repercussions that followed, including the launching of state and federal investigations. A few reporters wrote up the apology (for the “tone” used by the wine-drinking, salad-munching Dr. Deborah Nucatola as she discussed harvesting lungs, livers, hearts and brains) offered by Planned Parenthood’s president Cecile Richards.<br /><br />But given the many angles that could be covered, the lack of ferocity with which they’re tackling this story is noticeable. Compare, for instance, what happened in the last month with coverage of Confederate flags. The controversy over the flag arose after the man charged in the Charleston church shooting was pictured with a Confederate flag. Coverage was media-led and media-stoked. The media couldn’t stop finding new angles to cover, including calling up retailers and pressuring them to stop selling merchandise with any Confederate flag depiction, such as a toy depicting the General Lee from the Dukes of Hazzard television show.<br /><br />The shooting happened on June 17, about a month ago. The media quickly moved on from the victims and the shooting itself, even though there were many worthwhile angles to cover. Instead they went for frenzied coverage of the presence of Confederate flags. The Planned Parenthood video was released on July 14, about a week ago. If the story of harvesting organs for sale from aborted babies were deemed <i>merely </i>as important as the flag story, we’d expect to see many multiples of the levels of coverage we’re seeing now.</blockquote>The comparison of stories about the Confederate flag to the selling of fetal tissue is not anywhere in the same league. Hemingway provides a list dozens story proposals of what reporters could start investigating to build on the story. Don't look for any of them to be followed by the MSM. That is where media bias really comes into play - in the stories that the media choose to write and the ones that don't even occur to them to investigate.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />So why did it take so long to realize what <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/19/gawker__the_lefts_selective_outrage_127443.html">a vile entity Gawker is</a>?<blockquote>It’s not as if Gawker wasn’t odious before. It’s a publication that posts leaked videos of celebrities’ sexual activities (it settled one lawsuit over such a video in 2010 and is currently facing another from pro wrestler Hulk Hogan). It’s a publication that conducted a drawn-out innuendo campaign—based on rumors, conjectures, and what the site itself described as “questionable” emails— suggesting that actor James Franco was not only gay but a gay rapist who had violently assaulted an ex-boyfriend. (Now that it’s open season on Gawker, this campaign has been chronicled in all its vileness, and the author of some of those articles has admitted, in a later-deleted tweet, that the stories were “baseless.”) So why do people like Weinstein think those were the good days when Gawker was a “special” place to work?<br /><br />The obvious answer is: for the left, Gawker was “our son of a bitch.”<br /><br />The Gawker formula is a mix of gutter journalism and hard-left politics: a hybrid of a hipper, sleazier version of The National Enquirer for the pseudo-sophisticated and a hipper, snarkier version of Pravda for the modern progressive set. It went after actual or suspected misogynists, perpetrators of “white privilege,” and other “oppressors” with the same zeal, vitriol, and personal invective that the Soviet press of the 1930s went after class enemies, “wreckers,” and ideological deviationists. In Gawker’s world, the “class enemy” is represented by people like former Business Insider Chief Technology Officer Pax Dickinson, who was not only fired from his job but was rendered unemployable after Gawker affiliate Valleywag published an exposé of his provocative tweets—which included controversial opinions but also jokes taken out of context.</blockquote><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/where-did-billions-in-obamacare-grants-go/article/2568625">Obamacare continues to demonstrate the inability</a> of Big Government to handle large amounts of money with any efficiency or accountability.<blockquote>he federal government and the states have no idea what happened to billions of dollars given to create Obamacare's exchanges, according to a federal watchdog.<br /><br />The Government Accountability Office charged the Obama administration and many state-run healthcare exchanges with not adequately tracking federal funding, according to a report in the libertarian Reason magazine on Monday.<br /><br />The GAO report, which is still in draft form, comes as the administration is taking heat for not properly screening fake Obamacare applications.<br /><br />The watchdog's latest finding focuses on grant funding for state-run marketplaces from September 2010 to March 2015, Reason reported.<br /><br />Neither the states examined by the GAO nor the administration detailed how grant funding for information-technology projects was spent.<br /><br />Also, the states and the administration didn't track how much of $2.78 billion in Medicaid matching funds was used to fund exchange operations or development, according to Reason, which did not name the states implicated in the draft report.</blockquote>Sure. Why not hand out billions of dollars of taxpayer money and then not do anything to keep track of how it's spent? <br /><br />You can imagine the horror that would erupt if a candidate argued today that he or she planned to cut federal aid to higher education. But, as<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=College+Aid+Means+Higher+Tuition&oq=College+Aid+Means+Higher+Tuition&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.1590j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8"> a new study demonstrates</a>, that might be the best way to lower the cost of of a college education. <blockquote>Annual student loan originations have more than doubled since 2001, to $120 billion in 2012, and the government backs about 90% of these borrowings. Meantime, average tuition has climbed 46%.<br /><br />The authors wondered if the expansion of federal aid programs helped fuel the rise, a contested question since 1987 when then-Education Secretary William Bennett said that aid “enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.” The Fed researchers looked at how colleges responded when Congress bumped up per pupil aid limits between 2006 and 2008. Sure enough, students took out more loans, but universities gobbled up most of the money.<br /><br />Ohio University economist Richard Vedder connected these dots a decade ago, estimating in 2006 that every dollar of grant aid raised tuition 35 cents. He now looks prescient. The New York Fed study found that for every new dollar a college receives in Direct Subsidized Loans, a school raises its price by 65 cents. For every dollar in Pell Grants, a college raises tuition by 55 cents. This is one reason tuition has outpaced inflation every year for decades, while the average borrower now finishes college owing more than $28,000.<br /><br />Congress sells its bipartisan photo-op aid bills as a way to broaden access to education, but they don’t. More access to subsidized loans didn’t spur a swell in enrollment, though the authors hedge by mentioning that schools might need time to expand.<br /><br />The institutions that raised tuition the most were less distinguished private schools charging high tuitions (more than $22,000 in 2004) that accept about three-quarters of applicants. Such schools, the report notes, tend to have modest endowments and rely on middle- and high-income families.<br /><br />This phenomenon won’t surprise readers who watched housing prices soar in the mid-2000s as easy credit soaked the market, and the authors note the similarity. Student loans at $1.2 trillion are second only to mortgages in U.S. household liabilities.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_3_snd-bias.html">Heather MacDonald reports</a> on what Janet Napolitano as head of the University of California system is doing to address the supposed bias that university faculty search committees have against hiring women and minorities.<blockquote>The “Fostering Inclusive Excellence: Strategies and Tools for Department Chairs and Deans” seminar presumes that University of California faculty are so bigoted that they will refuse to hire the most qualified candidate for a professorship if that candidate happens to be female or an “underrepresented minority”—i.e., black or Hispanic. Attendees at the seminar were subjected to an “interactive theater scenario” called “Ready to Vote?” that showed white male computer-science professors on a fictional hiring committee belittling females and failing to “value diversity.” The author of the scenario, a professor of performance studies and ethnic studies at the University of California, San Diego, seems never to have attended a faculty-hiring committee meeting in her life. Nor, it would seem, has Janet Napolitano. How otherwise could they not know that every faculty search in the sciences, far from shunning females and URMs, is a desperate exercise in tracking down even remotely qualified female and non-Asian minority candidates who haven’t already been snapped up by more well-endowed competitors? Females in the sciences are hired and promoted nationwide at rates far above their representation in applicant pools. (Too few URM science Ph.D.s exist to have inspired many reliable studies analyzing their hiring chances.)<br /><br />The “Fostering Inclusive Excellence” seminar supplemented the patent fictions in “Ready to Vote?” with an equally specious handout, “Identifying Implicit Bias,” which claims that females and URMs are required to meet higher academic standards than white males and that their work is scrutinized more closely by hiring committees. This conceit was preposterous 30 years ago when it first became widespread and is even more so today. True, there is a double standard in hiring, but it redounds to the benefit of females and URMs, as anyone with the remotest exposure to academic culture should know. An entire subspecialty of diversity agitation argues that nontraditional forms of scholarship, such as personal memoirs or the collective editing of anthologies, should be viewed as equivalent to publications in peer-reviewed journals during tenure evaluations, when URMs and females are performing those activities. The advocacy for nontraditional credentials for “diverse” candidates has largely succeeded, especially in the social sciences and humanities.<br /><br />To voice these realities, however, is to commit a microaggression, according to University of California diversity enforcers. </blockquote>Remember, this is the university system that considers it a microaggression to say something like "I believe the most qualified person should get the job."<blockquote>Why <i>exactly </i>saying that the most qualified person should get the job is a microaggression is a puzzle. Either such a statement is regarded simply as code for alleged antiblack sentiment, or the diversocrats are secretly aware that meritocracy is incompatible with “diversity.”</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-60850783959623171102015-07-20T07:13:00.000-04:002015-07-20T07:13:00.220-04:00Cruising the WebAnd this is what we've come to. <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/18/omalley-apologizes-for-saying-all-lives-matter-video/">A Democrat has to apologize for saying "all lives matter" at a Netroots Nation event."</a> Do progressives truly believe that such an anodyne statement is something that leaders must apologize for. Governor O'Malley has issued his apology and now <a href="http://www.eclectablog.com/2015/07/white-progressives-get-a-taste-of-anger-frustration-as-blacklivesmatter-activists-upstage-bernie-sanders.html">Bernie Sanders is getting criticized</a> for not respecting the Black Lives Matter movement enough to let them drown out his speech. As <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/progressive-racial-fissure-ruptures-at-netroots-nation-nn15blacklivesmatter/">William Jacobson points out</a>, the inevitable result of such a focus on race is a fissure between white, elite progressives and black activists. I guess these protesters would scream down Martin Luther King if he spoke to them today.<br /><br />The list of what is racist keeps on growing. As Karol Markowicz writes, "Suddenly, everything is racist."<blockquote>And, though you may not have noticed, this last week was an especially racist one.<br /><br />First, the Web site Racked.com, generally a shopping site, took on the issue of racism on Instagram. Not racist images that people might post on Instagram, mind you, but the Instagram filters themselves.<br /><br />Yes, the filters that we put on our pictures to give our life experiences the necessary rosy hue are racist, because the filters allegedly lighten skin tone.<br /><br />A test of the filters on my own pale, freckled skin found the opposite to be true for me. Perpetua, Hudson, X-Pro II, Lo-Fi — all significantly darken my skin while only Reyes and Sierra lighten it.<br /><br />Then, at a New Orleans City Council meeting, Rudy Mills, head of a group called Remove Racist Images, pushed for removal of the fleur-de-lis throughout the city.<br /><br />The fleur-de-lis, an image of a lily, was originally a symbol of the French monarchy and is closely associated with Louisiana in general and New Orleans specifically.<br /><br />It’s the logo for the NFL’s New Orleans Saints and was a symbol of strength for the city after Hurricane Katrina.<br /><br />It’s been used for evil, sure — runaway slaves in Louisiana were branded with it — but it has a storied history and remains in many coats of arms throughout Europe.<br /><br />Since then, writers in The Washington Post blamed Amy Schumer’s stand-up comedy for Dylann Roof’s murderous assault on a black church in Charleston; fictional civil-rights hero Atticus Finch is newly racist in “Go Set a Watchman,” Harper Lee’s follow-up to “To Kill a Mockingbird”; Kylie Jenner was accused of racism for her cornrow hairdo and Jimmy Carter declared that white people feel superior to people of color.<br /><br />The fact is, America has come quite far on the issue of race.<br /><br />When 87 percent of the population supports interracial marriage, up from 4 percent in 1958, that’s an undeniable and significant cultural shift.</blockquote>It's almost as if the more we improve on race relations, the more some people feel the need to create ever shifting signs of racism, even saying "All lives matter."<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />It's sad that this even needed to be written, but a professor of history at NYU, Thomas J. Sugrue, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-dixies-fault/2015/07/17/7bf77a2e-2bd6-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html">has an essay in the Washington Post</a> answering those pundits who slam the South as a region, blaming the South for our nation's social problems. Sugrue reminds us that discrimination against blacks was not confined to the South.<blockquote>These crude regional stereotypes ignore the deep roots such social ills have in our shared national history and culture. If, somehow, the South became its own country, the Northeast would still be a hub of racially segregated housing and schooling, the West would still be a bastion of prejudicial laws that put immigrants and black residents behind bars at higher rates than their white neighbors and the Midwest would still be full of urban neighborhoods devastated by unemployment, poverty and crime. How our social problems manifest regionally is a matter of degree, not kind — they infect every region of the country.<br /><br />In fact, many of the racial injustices we associate with the South are actually worse in the North. Housing segregation between black and white residents, for instance, is most pervasive above the Mason-Dixon line. Of America’s 25 most racially segregated metropolitan areas, just five are in the South; Northern cities — Detroit, Milwaukee and New York — top the list. Segregation in Northern metro areas has declined a bit since 1990, but an analysis of 2010 census data found that Detroit’s level of segregation, for instance, is nearly twice as high as Charleston’s.<br /><br />The division between black and white neighborhoods in the North is a result of a poisonous mix of racist public policies and real estate practices that reigned unchecked for decades. Until the mid-20th century, federal homeownership programs made it difficult for black Americans to get mortgages and fueled the massive growth of whites-only suburbs. Real estate agents openly discriminated against black aspiring homeowners, refusing to show them houses in predominately white communities.<br /><br />When all else failed, white Northerners attacked blacks who attempted to cross the color line, using tactics we typically associate with the Jim Crow South. They threw bricks through the windows of their black neighbors’ homes, firebombed an integrated apartment building and beat black residents in the streets. In Detroit, to name one example, whites launched more than 200 attacks on black homeowners between 1945 and 1965. In Levittown, Pa., hundreds of angry whites gathered in front of the home of the first black family to move there and threw rocks through the windows. Racists burned crosses in the yards of the few white neighbors who welcomed the new family. That violence occurred in 1957, the same year whites in Little Rock attacked black students integrating Central High School, yet it’s that story — of racial bias in the South — that dominates our narrative of America’s civil rights struggle.</blockquote>We can still see the results of those discriminatory practices today.<blockquote>Economic segregation is most severe in America’s Northern metropolitan areas, as well, with Milwaukee; Hartford, Conn.; Philadelphia; and Detroit leading large cities nationwide, according to an analysis of 2010 census data by the Atlantic. White suburbanites across the North — even in Bill and Hillary Clinton’s adopted home town, Chappaqua, N.Y. — have fought the construction of affordable housing in their neighborhoods, trying to keep out “undesirables” who might threaten their children and undermine their property values. The effects of that segregation are devastating. Where you live in modern America determines your access to high-quality jobs (which are mostly in suburban places), healthy food (many urban areas are food deserts) and, perhaps most important, educational opportunities.<br /><br />Education remains separate and unequal nearly everywhere in the United States, but Confederate-flag-waving Southerners aren’t responsible for the most racially divided schools. That title goes to New York, where 64 percent of black students attend schools with few, if any, white students, according to a recent report by the Civil Rights Project. In fact, the Northeast is the only region where the percentage of black students in extremely segregated schools — those where at least 90 percent of students are minorities — is higher than it was in the 1960s. Schools in the South, on the other hand, saw the segregation of black students drop 56 percent between 1968 and 2011.</blockquote>Yes, of course, so much of the South's history is tainted by how blacks were treated under slavery and Jim Crow. But it is ahistorical to think that hateful racial policies were limited to the South and then to turn from that assumption to blaming the South today for social problems from racism to poverty to obesity as some pundits Sugrue points to have indeed argued.<br /><br />As someone who grew up in the Land of Lincoln but has lived most of my adult life in North Carolina, I have learned that racism can exist anywhere and the South of today shouldn't be blamed for the crimes of an earlier era. Northerners should have no attitude of special sanctity just because they are from the North. Rather we should remember the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln who established in his <a href="http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/peoriaspeech.htm">famed 1854 Peoria speech </a>that he could not claim a special morality being from the North because he would likely have had different attitudes if he were from the South.<blockquote>Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters.<br /><br />When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself.</blockquote>If you want to learn more about this pivotal speech that marked Lincoln's return to politics as he responded to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, read Lewis Lehrman's excellent book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811703614/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0811703614&link_code=as3&tag=mrsnewspagofh-20&linkId=RZMIWKEYV62FEBN2">Lincoln at Peoria: The Turning Point.</a> I highly recommend it.<br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0811703614&asins=0811703614&linkId=PUC4Y4UWBQA6KIDN&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br />I guess that Secretary of State Kerry thinks the best way to represent the U.S. at the negotiating table <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/clearing-hurdles-to-iran-nuclear-deal-with-standoffs-shouts-and-compromise.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&assetType=nyt_now">is to sit still while Iranians shouted at him.</a> And, apparently, it worked...at least for the Iranians. They forced Obama and Kerry to agree to lifting the ban on the sale of conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. All this for the pretense that the Iranian nuclear program will no longer be of danger to the region. However, as Amir Taheri points out, Obama and Kerry and other American leaders from Carter on have never understood the Iranian regime. <blockquote>One key reason for misunderstanding the nature of the present regime in Tehran is the failure to acknowledge that, for the past four decades, Iran has suffered from a Jekyll-and-Hyde split personality.<br /><br />As a people and a culture, Iran is immensely attractive.<br /><br />Valerie Jarett, reputed to be Obama’s closest adviser, remembers Shiraz, the Iranian cultural capital and the Florence of the East, where she was born and grew up. Before the revolution, Shiraz, with its breathtakingly beautiful architecture, was a city of gardens, wine and music with an annual international art festival. How could one not love Iran through it?<br /><br />Today, however, Shiraz, where John Kerry’s sister worked for years, is a scene of public hangings and floggings, with its prisons filled with political and religious dissidents.<br /><br />The film star Sean Penn, acting as a part-time reporter, visited Iran and wrote laudatory pieces. He saw Isfahan, the great former capital of Iran, as something of a paradise on earth. Like Clinton he was impressed by “incredibly progressive” people he met. What he ignored was that the Islamic Republic has been top of the list in the world for the number of executions and political prisoners.<br /><br />Another movie star, George Clooney, praises Iranian cinema as “the only original one” in the world. But he ignores the fact that the films he admires, seen in festivals in the West, are never shown inside Iran itself and that many Iranian cineastes are in jail or in exile.<br /><br />The pop star Madonna sings the ghazals of Persian Sufi poet Rumi and admires Iran. She ignores the fact that under the Khomeinist regime, Sufis are assassinated or in jail or forced into silence.<br /><br />Secretary of State John Kerry admires Iran because he knows it through his Iranian son-in-law, who hails from a pre-revolution middle-class family. He doesn’t know it is precisely such families that suffer most from Khomeinist terror and repression; this is why many fled into exile.<br /><br />As a nation-state, Iran has no problems with anybody. As a vehicle for the Khomeinist ideology it has problems with everybody, starting with the Iranian people. The Khomeinist regime makes no secret of its intense hatred for Iranian culture, which it claims has roots in “the age of ignorance” (jahiliyyah).<br />To admire this regime because of Iranian culture is like admiring Hitler for Goethe and Beethoven and praising Stalin for Pushkin and Tchaikovsky.<br /><br />This regime has executed tens of thousands of Iranians, driven almost 6 million into exile, and deprived the nation of its basic freedoms. It has also killed more Americans, often through surrogates, than al Qaeda did on 9/11. Not a single day has passed without this regime holding some American hostages.<br /><br />Iran as a nation is a solid friend of America. Iran as a vehicle for the Khomeinist revolution is an eternal enemy of “The Great Satan.”</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/357955.php">I'm with Ace </a>about Trump's supposed qualifications for the presidency.<blockquote>3. And the problem is not just this comment; the problem is that we see now that this is a habit. Someone claimed to me yesterday that Trump had "balls." I countered: He doesn't have balls, he has Money -- he's a rich guy surrounded by favor-seekers and yes-men who hasn't been contradicted since he first spat the silver spoon out of his mouth. He has the arrogance that college athletes get sometimes, that lead some of them to do horrible things -- the arrogance of knowing there will never be consequences.<br /><br />I don't call that balls. Balls -- courage -- is taking on an important fight knowing there will be consequences.<br /><br />This is just an elderly rich kid with a big mouth.<br /><br />4. People might say, "But he can learn." I disagree. For this reason only: In order to learn, one must wish to learn; and to wish to learn, of course, one must believe that there is something important yet to be learned, something that isn't already known to one's Big, Throbbing Wonderful Ego.<br /><br />To wish to learn is an act of self-abasement; it is a brave act saying "I am incomplete, I am less than I should be."<br /><br />Very egotistical men do not like learning. Learning is for the weak, or the young.<br /><br />Trump went to Wharton, he's always eager to tell you; he did his learning then for a couple of years. He's all done now. Now, he will be giving lessons.<br /><br />5. And that last bit -- the part about a man who has little knowledge of government, except in the favor-bank sector of it -- who actively despises learning about it, well, that could be a problem.<br /><br />We just had one Know-Nothing Know-It-All Princeling as President; I'm not sure I'd like to see a different variation of the breed.</blockquote>Trump is an egotistical, narcissistic jerk who thinks being rich is a sign that he's more intelligent than anyone else. That's why he has to brag over and over again about how rich he is and stick his name on everything. Our greatest leaders have had a streak of humility. They don't claim that they're religious and then <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/trump-has-never-sought-forgiveness/">state that they've never had to ask God for forgiveness. </a> <blockquote>"People are so shocked when they find ... out I am Protestant. I am Presbyterian. And I go to church and I love God and I love my church," he said.<br /><br />Moderator Frank Luntz asked Trump whether he has ever asked God for forgiveness for his actions.<br /><br />"I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don't think so," he said. "I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."<br /><br />Trump said that while he hasn't asked God for forgiveness, he does participate in Holy Communion.<br /><br />"When I drink my little wine -- which is about the only wine I drink -- and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed," he said. "I think in terms of 'let's go on and let's make it right.'"</blockquote>I'm not a Christian, but as far as I understand it, that is not the attitude that imbues the Christian faith. I wonder how Christian conservatives take his description of his beliefs. I know I set an unfair standard, but I measure potential leaders against one of the men I admire most in history, Abraham Lincoln, and the contrast in the men's humility is great. <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/357955.php">Ace is right.</a> We've have one egotistical president today who is convinced that anyone who disagrees with or ciriticizes him is unprincipled and we don't need another one who thinks that anyone who criticizes him is an idiot.<br /><br />It appears that <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/19/donald-trump-stole-chris-rocks-mccain-line-video/">Chris Rock made a similar joke about McCain in 2008 </a>during the election in which Rock supported Obama.<blockquote>“He a war hero. He a war hero,” Rock said of McCain. “He a war hero that got CAPTURED. There’s a lot of guys in jail that got captured. I don’t want to vote for nobody that got captured. I want to vote for the m*****f***** that got way.”</blockquote>Charming. But just because Al Franken and Chris Rock have made similar tasteless jokes and other Democrats didn't get microphones stuck in their faces to answer questions about whether they approved or rejected such lame comedy bits doesn't absolve Donald Trump. Trump glories in this sort of attention and notoriety. That might be fun for voters who are angry at politicians, but it's no way to win an election.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/two-shootings-and-two-very-different-media-reactions/article/2568522">T. Becket Adams notes the quite different</a> reactions among the media as they reported on two different horrific killings. <blockquote>Newsrooms demonstrated remarkable caution this week and avoided speculation about the motives of Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, 24, who went on a shooting spree in Chattanooga, Tenn., killing four U.S. Marines and injuring several more.<br /><br />The same cannot be said, however, for how the press reacted in February when three Arab-American teens were shot and killed in Chapel Hill, N.C., over what turned out to be a parking dispute. In that case, many in media appeared to suggest that the motive was anti-Muslim sentiment.<br /><br />But when news broke Thursday that there was a mass casualty event in Chattanooga, the media was careful not to jump to conclusions based on Abdulazeez's name or the fact that he was a naturalized citizen from Kuwait.<br /><br />"I know we don't know the motive of this young man," MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell said during a broadcast shortly after the attack.<br /><br />CNN national security analyst Tom Fuentes was also unwilling Thursday after the shooting to draw conclusions based on Abdulazeez's name, saying that he's not entirely sure whether the shooter was a Muslim.<br /><br />"First of all, John, I know what the name sounds like," Fuentes said. "But we don't know it's a Muslim name. We know it's an Arabic name. We don't know what this individual was believing in, and that's what they'll be trying to determine."<br /><br />CNN's Don Lemon added separately later that evening, "We still don't really know a motive here."<br /><br />On Friday, NBC News' Savannah Guthrie said, "It's too early to know, exactly, what his motive is."<br /><br />CNN's Chris Cuomo meanwhile said that same morning that, "we may never know the exact motive" of the Chattanooga shooter.<br /><br />The press was also careful to avoid speculation over why he had targeted military recruiting centers,</blockquote>That was quite a different reaction to the Chapel Hill shooting. There are times when the media are willing to wait for evidence and other times when evidence is not necessary. Funny how that works.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />In case the Planned Parenthood story has already sunk below people's notice, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421309/print">David Harsanyi makes some salient points.</a><blockquote>In America, it’s illegal to donate money to a candidate without first reporting it to the government. Even then, if you give more than is permissible, you could end up in jail. In this country, you can’t add trans fats to your foods or smoke cigarettes in your own bar. Here, the Little Sisters of the Poor can’t tell the state they’d rather not buy condoms, and bakers can’t tell a couple they’d rather not participate in their wedding.<br /><br />But it’s completely legal to kill an unborn baby for convenience and then sell its parts for cash....<br /><br />If this were a video of some product researchers talking about the same process but describing the vivisection of a monkey or a cat for organ harvesting instead, most Americans would be justly repulsed. Yet because this is Planned Parenthood, an organization fulfilling its eugenicist founder’s goal of population control, it will be treated as just another dispute in the culture war, completely devoid of scientific and moral context.<br /><br />Because this is Planned Parenthood, most of the media will frame this as a political tug-of-war rather than explore the politics and ethics of allowing Americans to terminate a life and then harvest organs. Some in the media will probably have a difficult time even comprehending why anyone would deem this much of a story at all. You’ll recall how a number of politicians and reporters struggled to explain the distinction between a run-of-the-mill late-term abortionist and Kermit Gosnell. (Answer: One has a license.)<br /><br />....How many Americans are OK with this practice? We should find out. Liberals never have a problem making expansive arguments on emotional grounds. The single woman without health care tells us all we need to know about Obamacare; the lone shooter tells us all we need to know about guns laws, etc. There is simply no reason that Nucatola should not be on television ads everywhere, sipping her wine and intimately describing how abortionists squash the life out of unborn babies for money. How many Americans would accept this policy as normal?</blockquote>And you wouldn't know it from the media, but adult and umbilical-cord blood stem cells <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421318/planned-parenthood-fetal-stem-cells-research-outdated">have proven to be much more efficacious for medical procedures.</a><blockquote>“The other part of it,” he says, “is that I don’t think they have caught on with the more recent science. They are still working off this mindset of easier growing tissue, faster growing tissue and that’s why they’re looking for fetal rather than adult stem cells.”<br /><br />“If you look at the published results, whether it’s adult stem cells and then comparing to fetal stem cells or to embryonic stem cells, when we talk about treating patients, adult stem cells are the gold standard,” Prentice continues. “And virtually all success — over a million patients now — is due to adult stem cells.”</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421298/planned-parenthood-abortion-john-rawls-justice">Jonah Goldberg applies John Rawls' idea </a>of a "veil of ignorance" to abortion. <blockquote>In <i>A Theory of Justice</i>, he offered a thought experiment. Imagine you and a group of other people were in a kind of metaphysical limbo, tasked with designing a society from scratch. But you exist behind what Rawls called a “veil of ignorance.” You will be “born” — “placed” is probably a better word — into that society, but you don’t know where on the socio-economic ladder you will land. You don’t know whether you will be born a man or a woman, black or white, young or old.<br /><br />How would you, and others in this “original position,” want society to be arranged? The answer, according to Rawls: as fairly as possible.<br /><br />Since you don’t know where you’ll land, you’d want to reduce the chances that you’d be born with a disadvantage.</blockquote>As Goldberg points out, liberals embrace this philosophical argument because it provides a foundation for redistributive justice. But not for abortion.<blockquote>But where the Rawlsian “original position” really falls apart for me is on the question of abortion. Practically, the only true “original position” isn’t in some hypothetical realm, but in the womb. And the first choice we would all have from behind the veil of ignorance is to be born in the first place....<br /><br />Rawls was explicitly in favor of abortion in the first trimester and more vague about later-term abortions of the sort practiced by Gosnell and described by Nucatola. The abortion industry prefers to talk about abortions that do away with unwanted “clumps of cells” or clear out “uterine contents.” But the beings Nucatola sells for parts have hearts and lungs and livers. Clumps of cells do not.<br /><br />If I were living behind the veil of ignorance and was afforded the opportunity to be eliminated in utero, I’d probably opt for getting it over with as soon as possible, before I developed pain receptors, never mind salable parts. But, again, I’d first choose to be born. In that sense, you could say I’m pro-choice.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/updating-the-cliche-that-its-better-to-let-10-guilty-men-go-free/article/2568368">Ashe Schow points out </a>that the extremist approach taken today regarding sexual assault on college campuses has taken the approach that "It's better 10 innocent persons suffer than one guilty escape." That is their justification for ignoring evidence and due process.<blockquote>As a matter of principle, innocent people should never be falsely accused, and rapists should always be punished — and hopefully removed from the population rather than simply expelled from a university. That isn't such an extreme idea. But in the current culture surrounding campus sexual assault, it is. Point out the holes in an accuser's story? You're a "rape apologist." Suggest that accused students be granted their constitutional right to due process? Get ready to be accused of being "pro-rape."</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clintons-economics-suddenly-its-1947/article/2568356">Michael Barone explains</a> how Hillary's approach to the economy is based on the assumptions from 1947, the year she was born. <blockquote>But laced throughout the sterile verbiage is an assumption that was more widely shared by policy elites and ordinary American voters in 1947, the year Hillary Clinton was born, than it is today, 68 years later. That is the assumption that government is capable of solving just about every problem.<br /><br />You can understand why that confidence was strong in Clinton's early years. The United States had just won a world war and was facing not the widely predicted resumption of the Depression of the 1930s but the surging postwar prosperity that is still fondly remembered by many.<br /><br />"We must drive steady income growth," Clinton said, as if that were as simple as popping those new automatic transmission shift levers into "D." "Let's build those faster broadband networks." Which private firms were doing until a Federal Communications Commission network neutrality ruling demanded by Barack Obama. We must provide "quality, affordable child care," as if government were good at this.<br /><br />"Other trends need to change," Clinton said, including "quarterly capitalism," stock buybacks and "cut-and-run shareholders who act more like old-time corporate raiders." This sounds like a call to return to the behavior of dominant big businesses in the early postwar years, when they worked in tandem with big government and big labor — and faced little foreign competition or market discipline.<br /><br />As for new growing businesses, Clinton hailed the "on-demand or so-called 'gig economy,' " but said it raises "hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future." She endorsed the Obama extension of overtime to $50,000-plus employees and said "we have to get serious about supporting union workers."<br /><br />In other words, let's try to slam the growing flexible economy into the straitjacket of the rigid regulations and the union contracts of half a century ago. Everybody should punch a time clock, work the same number of hours, in accordance with thousands of pages of detailed work rules. That template hasn't produced much economic growth since the two postwar decades. But it would siphon a lot of money via union dues from the private sector to the Democratic Party.<br /><br />On top of that, Clinton would expand paid family days and offer more sick leave, increased overtime pay and an ever higher minimum wage — measures that would tend to subsidize or produce non-work in an economy that has the lowest workforce participation in nearly 40 years. She would make "investments in cleaner renewable energy" — Solyndra? — and spend billions on universal pre-kindergarten even though researchers (including the Obama Department of Health and Human Services) say it has no lasting benefit.<br /><br />Clinton concluded by asking some interesting questions. "How do we respond to technological change in a way that creates more good jobs than it displaces and destroys?" And "what are the best ways of nurturing successful startups outside the successful corridors, like Silicon Valley?"<br /><br />"We" presumably means government, with the assumption that centralized experts can guide others to maximize production and innovation. There was some reason to believe that in 1947, when government had spurred technical innovation (the atom bomb). There's little reason to believe it if you look at the recent performance of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Personnel Management or healthcare.gov.<br /><br />The problem with Clinton's "paleoliberalism" (columnist David Brooks's term) is that centralized planning just doesn't work. Government is increasingly (political scientist Steven Teles's term) a "kludgeocracy."</blockquote><br />And Hillary Clinton's campaign is so uptight about her appearances is that <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-forbids-young-supporters-talking-press_993050.html">they won't let her supporters talk to the media.</a><blockquote>"Here's what struck me," said Susan Page of USA Today, "when I read the coverage in the Des Moines Register this morning. Jennifer Jacobs, who's been on your show, was covering this last night. Big demonstrations outside of young people for O'Malley and Hillary Clinton. She went up to the Clinton supporters -- these are protesters for Clinton -- and they were told they were not allowed to [speak to] a reporter."<br /><br />Page continued, "Now, why in the world would the campaign tell their own supporters who came out to campaign in favor Hillary Clinton ... these are the young people, college kids, for Hillary, and they've been told they can't talk to reporters. Why in the world would you do that?<br /><br />"This raises some warning flags for Hillary Clinton campaign that is trying to control their supporters."</blockquote>Ya think? Maybe they know the supporters can't answer questions about Hillary's many lies. Or maybe they don't want them to talk about <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/18/video-hillary-muzzling-campaign-supporters/">the disappointing turnout.</a> If the media think that they are being handcuffed now from full coverage of the Clinton campaign, perhaps they might ponder what it would be like if she were in the White House.<br /><br /><a href="http://triblive.com/opinion/salena/8759861-74/americans-government-president#axzz3gJ2Jxgvy">Saleno Zito has a perceptive column </a>analyzing the appeal of both Trump and Sanders.<blockquote>There is a disturbance in American politics. But no one in the political class seems to be pinpointing the correct source.<br /><br />Donald Trump gets all of the credit for it from journalists, pundits and academics. They could not be more wrong.<br /><br />They are looking only at the surface, seeing the response to his harangues as an affirmation of the man. If they looked beyond the cartoonish image of Trump, they would understand that the true disturbance is the frustration of Americans, not the bluster of one man.<br /><br />The same goes for the surge by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont against Hillary Clinton on the Democrats' side. Clinton's other competitors — Virginia's Jim Webb, a former U.S. senator and Navy secretary, and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley — are running deliberate campaigns, but they don't reflect the fire and unrest of voters on the center-left.<br /><br />It is always remarkable to witness experts not understanding the field in which they are experts; even more remarkable, they still do not recognize the frustration of the masses, despite the unsettling wave elections of 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2014 that vividly affirmed populist movements against both political parties' establishments.<br /><br />Americans are just tired of it all. Tired of no one speaking honestly to them, tired of being told they cannot speak honestly.<br /><br />Think about this: For two administrations, Democrats, Republicans and independents effectively have been told to hold their tongues. During the Bush administration, you were unpatriotic if you criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; during the Obama administration, you're a racist if you criticize the president or his policies.<br /><br />And don't even think about expressing your values if those are outside the elite's standard of everyone deserving equality and fairness (unless, of course, you disagree with that elitist viewpoint, in which case hatred and character destruction are your reward).</blockquote>Though, if you're angry at government and the nation's leaders, I don't see how Bernie Sanders is the answer unless your main anger is at the elites of the Democratic Party deciding things for you.<br /><br />And for something different, enjoy Justin Halpern's i<a href="http://grantland.com/features/grantland-fauxsclusive-mark-cubans-inbox/">maginings of Mark Cuban's email inbox.</a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-66ZLaJ-limc/Vau9is3nGsI/AAAAAAAABPQ/D6H89UhnBmQ/s1600/cubanalldone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-66ZLaJ-limc/Vau9is3nGsI/AAAAAAAABPQ/D6H89UhnBmQ/s320/cubanalldone.jpg" /></a></div>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-72059391837590819702015-07-18T17:55:00.001-04:002015-07-18T18:07:25.031-04:00Can this please be the beginning of the end of the Donald Trump boomlet? Iknow that some of my readers are irritated with me for criticizing Trump. Many people like his supposedly forthright style and are thrilled that he's expressing their concerns about our nation's immigration policies. I think he's a deceptive big mouth who isn't a true conservative. He's not even someone <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/donald-trump-running-for-president/398345/">who has consistently spoken out against illegal immigration.</a> He's just glomming onto an issue that gains him notoriety. And he has the name recognition and the ability to gain media buzz in order to get a pop in the polls. It's been very discouraging to see much more honorable candidates crowded off the public stage because of his boastful bluster.<br /><br />I would like to think his <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/18/trump-crosses-one-red-line-too-many-declares-john-mccain-not-a-war-hero/">latest disgusting comments</a> about John McCain's years as POW will awaken people to what a disgusting blowhard he is who will <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/18/trump-slams-mccain-for-being-captured-in-vietnam/">say anything </a>when he gets going in order to pump himself up and denigrate his critics. <blockquote>“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said. Sarcastically, Trump quipped, “He’s a war hero because he was captured.” Then, he added, “I like people that weren’t captured.”</blockquote>And this is the man who questions other Republicans' IQs.<br /><br />Whatever one thinks of John McCain, that shouldn't interfere with honoring him for his years as a POW suffering torture so he wouldn't given in to the North Vietnamese. Remember that McCain, as the sone of an admiral, <a href="http://theweek.com/speedreads/567269/reminder-john-mccain-refused-early-release-fromprison-camp">could have gotten released earlier</a>, but he refused to jump ahead of those who had bee prisoners for longer. How many of us could show similar honor? <br /><br />I would think that only a worm would criticize him for having been a prisoner. But Trump went there. And now that there is a major <a href="http://therightscoop.com/hes-a-war-hero-because-he-was-captured-i-like-people-that-werent-captured-trump/">kerfuffle on social media </a>of people criticizing him for his remarks, he's issued a <a href="https://twitter.com/moody/status/622464366076542976">fatuous statement</a> that only someone of his monumental ego would think was at all exculpatory. Trump blames McCain for not having done enough for veterans. Really? How are the problems in the VA the fault of MCCain who has always been a strong advocate for veterans. And what has Trump done for veterans? And how does a man <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/18/trump-slams-mccain-for-being-captured-in-vietnam/">who had three student deferments and a medical deferment for a bone spur</a> get off criticizing a man who spent five and a half years being tortured? I don't mind someone of that era taking every opportunity to avoid serving in Vietnam, but at least he could have the grace to shut his mouth in criticizing someone else's service.<br /><br />Pete Hegseth, leader of Concerned Veterans of America, <a href="http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/trump-gop-candidacy-blows_993170.html?page=2">reminds us how long </a>McCain has worked for veterans' needs.<blockquote>"What a dumb thing to say--to steal a favorite phrase from Mr. Trump. It's certainly painfully ironic that a guy with four student deferments during Vietnam would say such outrageous things about a legitimate war hero. It boggles the mind and is the height of arrogance.<br /><br />"Mr. Trump's popularity has been tied to his ability to say what people are thinking and feeling; tapping into the near-universal concern about the direction of our country. In this case -- he said the opposite of what people, especially conservatives, think. John McCain is a war hero, plain and simple. Moreover, he has taken the lead -- for years -- in trying to give veterans real health care choices and holding the VA accountability. Trump's assertion that McCain has 'done very little for veterans' is patently false, ill-informed and unhelpful in every way."</blockquote>But why would Trump speaking off the cuff to say something ridiculously untrue surprise anyone? Maybe he should go back to his birther rumblings. He had as much foundation for his blustering accusations then as he has criticizing McCain's war service and record on veterans.<br /><br /><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/18/donald-trump-offends-mccain-fans-with-ol">Jesse Walker at Reason </a>points out that Donald Trump is just following in the path of Al Franken in making fun of McCain's time as POW. This is what <a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/01/10/voices/">Franken wrote for Salon </a>back in 2000 when Mccain was running in the GOP primaries against Bush.<blockquote>I have tremendous respect for McCain but I don’t buy the war hero thing. Anybody can be captured. I thought the idea was to capture them. As far as I’m concerned he sat out the war.</blockquote>Ha ha. I guess that's an example of liberal humor. Somehow, following Al Franken's example doesn't seem like a great model for a GOP presidential candidate.<br /><br /><a href="http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/trump-gop-candidacy-blows_993170.html">Stephen Hayes reminds us</a> about the torture that McCain suffered and describes how Trump blustered his way through questions about why he would say he likes "people who weren't captured."<blockquote>At a testy press conference after his performance, and as the real-time scorn for his comments dominated Twitter, Trump doubled-down. He pretended that his criticism came because McCain “has not done enough for veterans in this country…I see the veterans. I’m with the veterans all the time. Some of these people wait four or five days just to see a doctor.”<br /><br />Of course, if Trump had even passing knowledge of the current controversy over care for U.S. veterans, he would understand that some veterans wait literally months before seeing a doctor – not just four or five days. But fact-checking Donald Trump is like picking up after a dog with diarrhea; there’s just not much point.<br /><br />I asked Trump if he was blaming John McCain for his capture, as his comments implied. “I am saying John McCain has not done a good job,” Trump responded, dodging the question.<br /><br />When I repeated the question, Trump said: “I am not blaming John McCain for his capture. If he gets captured, he gets captured.”<br /><br />“Why would you say you like people who don’t get captured?”<br /><br />Trump: “The people that don’t get captured I’m not supposed to like? I like the people who don’t get captured and I respect the people who do get captured.”<br /><br />Why would you say that in the context of John McCain: “Excuse me, excuse me. I like the people that don’t get – you have many people that didn’t get captured. I respect them greatly. You’ve got people that got captured. I respect them greatly also. Why – I’m not supposed to respect the people that don’t get captured?<br /><br />Are you suggesting that John McCain did something to lead to his capture?<br /><br />Trump: “Of course not.”<br /><br />Why would you say what you said?<br /><br />At that point, Trump turned and answered a question about China.<br /><br />Later, I asked Trump if he would apologize to McCain. “No, not at all.”<br /><br />And after that, I asked Trump if he had ever read any accounts of McCain’s time in captivity before he suggested McCain is not a war hero.<br /><br />“It’s irrelevant.”</blockquote>What a jerk. How anyone could think that he has the character to be president is just beyond me.<br /><br />Beyond my disgust at Trump, I have the hope that those conservatives who have been thrilled to hear Trump take on the GOP establishment as well as the media will pause and listen to what the guy is saying. I thought conservatives honored veterans and those who have suffered in their service to this country. Maybe remember Reagan's 11th Commandment about criticizing other Republicans. Just listen to the man and look at his quite non-conservative record. Is this really the voice you want speaking for you? Do you really imagine that he would be a success against any candidate the Democrats might put up? Do you really want someone representing you who has so insulted all veterans by trying to use them for a political attack on a critic?<br /><br />Just imagine that a Democrat had said the same thing about John McCain. I bet that Trump's cheerleaders would have been outraged if one of the Clintons or Obama had said the same thing. Well, you should be similarly angry when Trump is the one who said it.Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-85334569570987295102015-07-17T07:21:00.000-04:002015-07-17T07:21:00.057-04:00Cruising the WebThe most common trick that President Obama uses in fending off criticism is to assert a false choice between his policies and what his critics want. Thus, he'd say that his opponents just wanted to leave people uninsured when faced with criticisms of Obamacare and totally ignore all the proposals that Republicans put forward in place of his plan. He does the same thing with Iran. It's his deal or outright war. That is so false. There was another choice, but Obama ignored it and then made it impossible. <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Obama%E2%80%99s+False+Iran+Choice&oq=Obama%E2%80%99s+False+Iran+Choice&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i61l2.863j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">The WSJ explains this.</a><blockquote>Mr. Obama knows there has always been an alternative to his diplomacy of concessions because many critics have suggested it. It’s called coercive diplomacy, and it might have worked to get a better deal if Mr. Obama had tried it.<br /><br />Take the sanctions regime, which finally started to get tough in December 2011. By 2013 Iran had an official inflation rate of some 35%, its currency was falling, and its dollar reserves were estimated to be down to $20 billion. Mr. Obama had resisted those sanctions, only to take credit for them when Congress insisted and they began to show results in Tehran.<br /><br />Yet Mr. Obama still resisted calls to put maximum pressure on Iran. He gave waivers to countries like Japan to import Iranian oil. He was reluctant to impose sanctions on global financial institutions that did business with Iran (especially Chinese banks that offered Tehran access to foreign currency). The U.S. could have gone much further to blacklist parts of Iran’s economy run by the Revolutionary Guard Corps. A bipartisan majority in Congress was prepared to impose more sanctions this year, but Mr. Obama refused as he rushed for a second-term deal.<br /><br />Mr. Obama now argues that the sanctions could not have been maintained, and that they are sure to collapse if Congress scuttles his deal. But there was no sign sanctions were collapsing as long as the U.S. continued to keep the pressure on. And to the extent support did weaken, one reason was the momentum of Mr. Obama’s negotiations. The more the U.S. gave the impression that it desperately wanted a deal, the more other countries and businesses began to maneuver for post-sanctions opportunities.<br /><br />This is the opposite of coercive diplomacy, which shows determination so an adversary under pressure concludes that it must make more concessions. This is the diplomacy Ronald Reagan practiced with the Soviets, refusing to budge on missile defenses at the 1986 Reykjavik Summit despite pressure from 99% of the world to do so. The Soviets were soon back at the negotiating table.<br /><br />Mr. Obama could also have pressured Iran on other fronts, the way Reagan did the Soviets by arming enemies of its proxies. The U.S. could have armed the Free Syrian Army to defeat Iran’s allied Assad regime in Damascus, and it could have helped Israel enforce U.N. Resolution 1701 that imposes an arms embargo on Hezbollah in Lebanon.<br /><br />On Wednesday Mr. Obama conceded that Iran supplies Hezbollah and Assad, while implying he could do nothing about it. The truth is that he chose to do nothing because he didn’t want to offend Iran and jeopardize his nuclear talks. Instead he should have increased the pressure across the board to assist the negotiations and get a better deal.<br /><br />As for Mr. Obama’s false choice of war and diplomacy, the truth is that war becomes less likely when diplomacy is accompanied by the credible threat of war. The President removed that credible threat from Iran by insisting war was the only (bad) alternative to his diplomacy, as well as by threatening force against Syria only to erase his own “red line.” In May Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei boasted that the U.S. military “can’t do a damn thing” against Iran. He understood his negotiating partner all too well.</blockquote>There is something truly contemptible about a president ignoring and then destroying one path to achieving his goals and then criticizing those who supported that path as the ones who want war. It might be an effective device with the low information voter, but it is still despicable, particularly when the stakes are so very high.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%E2%80%98That%E2%80%99s+What+Politicians+Do%E2%80%99">James Taranto notes </a>Obama's response to a question from ABC's Jonathan Karl about how Syra's Assad and Iranian leaders are trumpeting how well they've done in this deal. Obama said "That's what politicians do." They spin results. How ironic that Obama would say that in the midst of a press conference in which he was spinning the results himself.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/07/15/Hidden-Costs-Iran-Deal">Liz Peek writes in the Fiscal Times</a> that the hidden costs of Obama's deal with Iran is what we had to give up to China and Russia to get their cooperation in the deal.<blockquote>Wat did the Iran deal cost the U.S.? Keeping adversaries like China and Russia at the negotiating table was likely expensive – even though both have much to gain from the relaxation of international sanctions on Iran. Both look forward to ramped-up arms sales and increased trade with Iran, but even so, neither China nor Russia hands out diplomatic wins to the United States without some payback. The proposed acquisition of high-tech chipmaker Micron by a state-owned Chinese company may signal the sort of quid pro quo we will see in months to come.</blockquote><br /><a href="https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/07/15/iran-nuclear-deal-not-about-nukes/">Abe Greenwald analyzes </a>what he believes were the real goals of Obama in pursuing this deal with Iran.<blockquote>If you think the United States just struck a poor nuclear deal with Iran, you’re right; but if that’s your key takeaway, you’re missing the point. Iran’s nuclear program was last on the list of the Obama administration’s priorities in talking to Tehran. The administration readily caved on Iran’s nukes because it viewed the matter only as a timely pretense for achieving other cherished aims. These were: (1) preventing an Israeli attack on Iran; (2) transforming the United States into a more forgiving, less imposing power; (3) establishing diplomacy as a great American good in itself; (4) making Iran into a great regional power; and (5), ensuring the legacies of the president and secretary of state as men of vision and peace.</blockquote>Meanwhile, <a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/210696/">Glenn Reynolds reminds us</a> of Bill Clinton's claims about how great the deal was that his administration signed with North Korea and how that deal would prevent North Korea from getting a nuclear weapon. Do we never learn?<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />And <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/16/u-s-chief-negotiator-admits-anytime-anyplace-access-to-irans-nuke-facilities-was-rhetoric/">now they tell us.</a><blockquote>Wendy Sherman, the chief negotiator for the United States in the recently agreed upon nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, has admitted that President Obama’s guarantee of “anytime, anyplace access” to Iran’s several nuclear facilities was more rhetoric than reality.<br /><br />“I think this is one of those circumstances where we have all been rhetorical from time to time,” Sherman told a conference call of Israeli reporters, the Jerusalem Post reports.<br /><br />“The phrase, anytime, anywhere, is something that became popular rhetoric, but I think people understood that if the IAEA felt it had to have access, and had a justification for that access, that it would be guaranteed, and that is what happened,” she added.<br /><br />In defending the agreement, which allows for Iran to have 24-day advance notice before inspectors are allowed to visit suspected nuclear facilities, Sherman said, “It’s not so easy to clean up a nuclear site.”<br /><br />“Twenty four days may seem like a long time, but in nuclear matters, according to scientists and technical experts, it is actually a very short time,” she added.</blockquote><br />But of course we gave into <a href="http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-bans-u-s-inspectors-from-all-nuclear-sites/">this demand.</a><blockquote>U.S. and Iranian officials confirmed Thursday that no American nuclear inspectors will be permitted to enter the country’s contested nuclear site under the parameters of a deal reached with world powers this week, according to multiple statements by American and Iranian officials.</blockquote><br />If you thought the Obamacare website had improved its abilities to sort out real applicants and fraudulent ones, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-bogus-enrollees-kept-getting-obamacare-172439141--finance.html?nf=1">think again.</a><blockquote>Phony applicants that investigators signed up last year under President Barack Obama's health care law got automatically re-enrolled for 2015. Some were rewarded with even bigger taxpayer subsidies for their insurance premiums, a congressional probe has found.<br /><br />The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office says 11 counterfeit characters that its investigators created last year were automatically re-enrolled by HealthCare.gov, even though most had unresolved documentation issues. In Obama's terms, they got to keep the coverage they had.<br /><br />Six of those later were flagged and sent termination notices. But GAO said it was able to get five of them reinstated by calling HealthCare.gov's consumer service center. That seemed to be a weak link in the system.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/meghan-mccain-fox-news-channel-contributor-1201541625/">Why, Fox News? </a> For God's sake, why?<blockquote>Meghan McCain, the political scion who has won public fame as a blogger, commentator and TV-show host, will join Fox News Channel as a contributor, <i>Variety </i>has learned.</blockquote>Why would they want to pay money to such a talentless person whose only claim to fame is her father?<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-s-white-male-voter-problem-20150712">S. V. Date at the National Journal</a> analyzes how Democrats are losing more and more support from white males. And Hillary is not the candidate to win them back.<blockquote>Karl Savage is the kind of guy that makes top Democrats nervous.<br /><br />He lives in a working-class neighborhood, with a cigar-store Indian perched on his front stoop and a carved Harley-Davidson sign on his garage. He's voted in Democratic primaries, he's older, he's white—and he does not care for Hillary Clinton. Not one little bit.<br /><br />He made this very clear, in fact, to a Clinton campaign volunteer who rang his doorbell recently only to watch the front door close on him just seconds into his pitch. A short while later, his wife, Pamela, offered this explanation before similarly shutting the door: "We're not interested. We don't like her."<br /><br />So while Republicans fret about their party's outreach to Latinos and other minorities, this one Saturday morning door-knock encapsulates the fear among leading Democrats: Their party no longer speaks to white people, particularly white men, and they could lose the White House because of it.</blockquote>Of course, it's not at all clear that losses among white males would be more damaging to Democrats than losses among women and minorities might be to Republicans.<br /><br />However, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/16/this-isnt-a-good-trend-line-for-hillary-clintons-2016-prospects/">if this trend line continues,</a> she'll have a lot more to worry about than white males.<blockquote>Hillary Clinton has a problem, according to new national numbers from an Associated Press-GfK poll. The problem is this: Since she's been an active presidential candidate -- she released a video making her intentions plain on Sunday April 12 -- the number of people who view her favorably has rapidly dropped. Since an April AP-GfK poll, Clinton's overall favorable number has dipped by seven points while her unfavorable rating has risen by eight -- up to 49 percent in the new survey.<br /><br />And, it's not simply Republicans and independents growing more skeptical in their views of Clinton. Seventy percent of self-identified Democrats in the AP-GfK poll said they viewed Clinton favorably, down from 81 percent who said the same back in April.<br /><br />That's not so good -- especially when you dig further into the AP-GfK numbers on Clinton. Only 31 percent of likely voters say the word "honest" describes Clinton "well" or "very well." Just 40 percent say the same thing when it comes to Clinton being "compassionate." Thirty seven percent say the word "inspiring" describes Clinton either well or very well. You get the idea.<br /><br />The issue in all of these numbers for Clinton is that they suggest that the more people see her as a candidate -- rather than a stateswoman or former diplomat -- the less they like her and/or warm up to her.</blockquote>Well, yeah. She's not a likable person. But she is a woman, so maybe that is all that matters.<br /><br />Well, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/14/remove-work-requirements-and-food-stamp-enrollment-explodes-in-a-snap/">this isn't any sort of surprise </a>- at least for those people who understand incentives and human rationality.<blockquote>One of the main causes to the food stamp explosion is the gutting of work requirements. According to federal law, able-bodied adults without dependents need to work at least 20 hours/week or lose benefits after 3 months. In reality, over 40 states have waived such a requirement, according to the Foundation For Government Accountability (FGA). For comparison, in 2006, only six states had such a waiver; it’s now grown to 44.<br /><br />In 2000, 47 states had asset tests. Federal law states one is eligible if liquid assets are less than $2,000 ($3,250 in homes with disabled or elderly members). Now, asset tests are gone in 35 states, and weakened in five others. It’s to the point where lottery winners and millionaires can be added to food stamp rolls. The removal of the asset test has added 1 million people to the program, with another 4.8 million able-bodied Americans receiving food stamps due to the elimination of work requirements, according to the FGA.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Well, <a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/former-clinton-aide-turned-cnn-commentator-obsessed-with-hillarys-alcohol-consumption/">this is a different argument for what a great person Hillary Clinton is.</a><blockquote>Patti Solis Doyle, a longtime Hillary Clinton adviser who served as campaign manager during her failed 2008 presidential bid, joined CNN as a political commentator Tuesday morning and penned an op-ed for the network about the Democratic presidential candidate.<br /><br />During the piece, Solis Doyle, who has previously described Clinton as a “fun” drinker and a gossip, zeroes in on her experience tossing back beers with the former first lady.<br /><br />“Having worked for her for more than 17 years, I’ve had a beer (or two) with her and I can tell you it is a hell of a lot of fun,” Solis Doyle brags. She spotlights her affinity for “the ‘which candidate would you rather have a beer with’ game,” though neglects to admit whether she would prefer to imbibe with Clinton or other competing candidates. </blockquote>Apparently, Solis Doyle is quite enthralled with the Hillary-is-fun-because-she-likes-drinking argument because she tends to repeat it over and over. I don't think that will convince anyone. Somehow, the idea of kicking back with Hillary and a beer just doesn't appeal.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-32676614239127987842015-07-16T07:32:00.000-04:002015-07-16T07:32:00.393-04:00Cruising the Web<a href="http://link.nationalreview.com/view/551d55103b35d0c0438bc8c92txuw.74tn/1ec06ded">Jim Geraghty makes a good catch</a> of how far the Obama administration, specifically Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, has gone beyond its earlier claims. Despite very clear statements back in April that we would require any agreement with Iran to have "anytime, anywhere access" to Iran's nuclear facilities, now <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ben-rhodes-didnt-tell-truth-about-anywhere-anytime-inspections-irans-nuclear-program_991244.html">Ben Rhodes </a>is claiming that "we never sought anytime/anywhere inspections." I guess that Ben Rhodes would reply that "Dude, this was three years ago!" in order dismiss any interest in his previous statements just as he responded to questions about what happened in Benghazi as <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/05/01/dude-was-two-years-ago-fmr-wh-security-spox-blusters-over-tbt-benghazi-said-obama-not">"Dude, this was two years ago!"</a><br /><br />Geraghty has been keeping a running list of Obama lies.<blockquote>Think about this. The assurance that they kept pointing to, again and again, to quell critics never really mattered to them.<br /><br />One of the most insufferable complaints from this president and his fans is the assertion that he’s the target of more hostility and opposition than any previous president -- indicating they have short memories -- and that this is somehow unjust or unfair. When you lie to people, they tend to turn hostile. This happens when you assure people many times, loudly and clearly, that they can keep their plan, and then they can’t. Or that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video. Or that illegal immigrants released have only minor criminal records. Or that Bowe Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.”<br /><br />The modus operandi of this presidency is say whatever you need to say to get what you want, and then forget about it.<br /><br />Or as I wrote a long time ago, “A<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/8376/all-barack-obama-statements-come-expiration-date-all-them-jim-geraghty?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Jolt&utm_campaign=Jolt7152015">ll Barack Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date. All of Them.”</a></blockquote><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Why+They%E2%80%99re+Cheering+in+Tehran">Frederick Kagan </a>notes how far Obama was willing to bend over to accommodate the Iranians while simultaneously cutting the U.S. Congress out of the deal with Iran. He reports that "Adoption Day" will come after the approval of a UN Security Council resolution and after the Iranian parliament approves the deal.<blockquote>At that point Iran commits to apply the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which governs enhanced international inspections. But this commitment is provisional, “pending ratification by the Majlis”—the Iranian parliament. It is again noteworthy that no mention is made of any action to be taken by the U.S. Congress, despite the nod to Iran’s legislature.</blockquote>Does that really surprise anyone that this administration would show more deference to the Iranian parliament than to the U.S. Congress? Presumably, that is because he knows that the Iranian parliament will rubber stamp any agreement that the leaders approve, but has no such assurance about the American Congress. So better to just ignore them.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />So <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/you-should-know-better-obama-chastises-major-garrett-for-iran-prisoners-question/">Barack Obama got all huffy with CBS's Major Garrett about how Garrett phrased</a> his question about why the Americans held in Iran weren't part of the deal. Obama's biting response sure made Garrett much more well known than he would have been otherwise. Obama objected to the word "content" in Garrett's question, but <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/you-should-know-better-obama-chastises-major-garrett-for-iran-prisoners-question/">Garrett points out</a> that the administration has said previously that they would never be "content" with Americans being held in Iran. Obama had a reasonable response that any attempt to connect those Americans to negotiations would just lead the Iranians to seize more hostages. My objection to that is that, from the very beginning, Obama should have said that we would not negotiate about anything with Iran until those Americans were released. But Obama was so eager for negotiations that he wouldn't let anything stand in their way. Perhaps Iran will now release those Americans just to help Obama out in selling the deal, but don't count on it.<br /><br />If you weren't depressed enough already, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421120/our-four-horsemen-apocalypse?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Jolt&utm_campaign=Jolt07142015">Victor Davis Hanson writes</a> about the four dangerous foreign policy threats facing us today: Putin's Russia, China, Iran, and ISIS. For none of these threats do we seem to have anything near an answer. <blockquote>If this administration is not careful, by next year it may find ISIS at the gates of Baghdad, Russian forces massing on the border of Estonia, Japan and China shooting at each other over disputed air and sea space, and Iran stockpiling its growing enriched-uranium supplies for a not too distant multi-bomb nuclear rollout. We think the world is growing tense; in fact, it is only the calm before the storm.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421228/iran-deal-worse-stupid-its-dishonorable-david-french">David French explains</a> why the Iran deal is worse than just plain stupid; it is dishonorable.<blockquote>The American people need to clearly understand what their president has done. He’s granting billions of dollars in sanctions relief to a nation <i>that put bounties on the heads of American soldiers.</i> Iran isn’t ending its war against America. It’s still working — every day — to kill Americans, including the Americans Barack Obama leads as commander-in-chief of our armed forces. There is no honor in this agreement. Moreover, there is no honor in leaving innocent Americans behind — to rot in Iranian prisons — so that President Obama can declare peace in his time. Compared to rewarding killers and turning its back on innocent American prisoners, the Obama administration’s lies about the negotiations are a small thing indeed. After all, dishonorable people do dishonorable things. <br /><br />Every member of Congress should be made to answer this question: Do you believe in rewarding regimes that place bounties on the heads of American soldiers? If so, then tell the American people. But don’t tell them that this agreement brings peace, because no reasonable definition of the term includes Iran’s deadly, 36-year-long terror campaign against America and its allies.</blockquote>Even more horrifying is that this deal has freed up hundreds of millions of dollars for Iran to use to fund its terrorist activities throughout the Middle East and especially targeted at Israel. But it is more than Israel which will be suffer. Our Arab allies are also targets of Iranian-backed terrorism. How many more people will die because Iran, freed of sanctions, will have so much money at its disposal to kill those it deems enemies. And that includes Americans. Yet Obama persists in believing that this deal can turn Iran into a peaceful member of the world community. It is terrifyingly depressing. <br /><br />Hey. <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/calls-to-lift-export-ban-on-crude-grow-with-iran-deal/article/2568282">If it is okay for Iran to now export oil, shouldn't the U.S. have the same freedom? </a><blockquote>Under the terms of the agreement reached by the U.S., five world powers and Iran, Iranian oil is likely to be exported within months once sanctions are lifted. Republicans coalesced around the idea that allowing Iran to export crude was unfair when the U.S. won't permit its own producers to do the same.<br /><br />"If what I understand the lifting of the sanctions will allow for, again, you allow Iran an opportunity in the global oil market that you're denying your U.S. oil producers. I don't think that's right," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told reporters.<br /><br />"We will then be the only country that we sanction against oil exports. ... I think it could build some momentum around the fact that we should look at our oil in a very different way," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told reporters.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/417412/print">David Harsanyi notes a NYT article </a>in which Mrs. Clinton tells her advisers that the economy requires "toppling" the top 1%. Think of that verb and what it implies.<blockquote>It’s established media practice to talk about the GOP as the party that’s lurched to the far right, an ideologically intractable group on a disturbing trajectory that leads to 2008-era tax rates and other forms of fanaticism. But I would love for someone to point out the last time a Democratic-party candidate suggested that government should topple an entire class of Americans for the good of everyone else. Has anyone, including Barack Obama, ever gone that far? Remember that this isn’t just some slip of the tongue; this is Hillary’s camp laying out a fantastical story to an accommodating media outlet — going out of its way to make sure the word “topple” would be specifically mentioned in quotation marks. Also, I’d love to know which economists nodded their heads in agreement as Hillary embraced this harebrained Robert Reich zero-sum economic “toppling” theory.<br /><br />And shouldn’t the public know more? Seeing as it’s imperative for the political press to find out exactly how a Marco Rubio or Rick Perry — and, no doubt, all prospective Republican presidential candidates — would deal with a theoretical invitation to a gay wedding or what the Republican candidates’ thoughts are on macroevolutionary theory, I imagine the press will be scurrying to find out exactly what Hillary meant by her “toppling” comment.</blockquote>Just in case you are a devoted follower of the Elizabeth Warren school of economic thought, this is why it would not be a good idea to "topple" the top 1%.<blockquote>It’s established media practice to talk about the GOP as the party that’s lurched to the far right, an ideologically intractable group on a disturbing trajectory that leads to 2008-era tax rates and other forms of fanaticism. But I would love for someone to point out the last time a Democratic-party candidate suggested that government should topple an entire class of Americans for the good of everyone else. Has anyone, including Barack Obama, ever gone that far? Remember that this isn’t just some slip of the tongue; this is Hillary’s camp laying out a fantastical story to an accommodating media outlet — going out of its way to make sure the word “topple” would be specifically mentioned in quotation marks. Also, I’d love to know which economists nodded their heads in agreement as Hillary embraced this harebrained Robert Reich zero-sum economic “toppling” theory.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/15/helicopter-parenting-new-victorianism/">Anna Mussmann makes an interesting comparison. </a> She argues that helicopter parents today treat their children as the Victorian age treated women - poor, helpless creatures easily damaged by exposure to the external world.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0712ar.html">Aaron Renn in City Journal details </a>the dire economic crisis that Chicago is facing in trying to pay their pensions for city workers and teachers. Was this really what Rahm Emanuel was signing up for when he ran for mayor?<blockquote>Add it up and Chicago residents face another five to six years of pain just to get into a position where they might begin climbing out of the hole. This surely isn’t where Rahm Emanuel envisioned himself back in 2011. One wonders whether he fully understood the true financial condition of Chicago when he decided to pursue the mayor’s office—or grasped the lack of power even the most autocratic mayors have compared with the president or a governor.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/2016-elections-primary-amnesia-120046.html#.VaZ1SPlVikq">Jeff Greenfield reminds us </a>that we can't extrapolate from polls today what will happen when primary and caucus voters actually get to vote. He gives several historical as well as more recent examples that should serve as cautionary tales.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-donald-is-ahead-in-the-polls.-so-were-bachmann-thompson-and-jackson-at-this-point/article/2568326">Just a reminder of what the polls </a>were at similar points in previous elections. <blockquote>A mid-July 2011 Public Policy Polling survey found Congresswoman Bachmann leading the Republican field with 21 percent support. She would go on to win the August 13 Iowa Straw Poll before her campaign imploded. Bachmann withdrew from the race on Jan. 4, 2012, after placing 6th in the Iowa caucuses.<br /><br />According to a June 2007 Rasmussen poll, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson held a small lead among Republican presidential aspirants with 28 percent support. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was in second place with 27 percent. A Gallup poll also had Thompson and Giuliani in the top two spots (though in reverse order) in a nomination contest eventually won by Sen. John McCain. The most serious rivals to McCain, by the time of the primaries, were neither of those men, but rather Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.<br /><br />In June 2003, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman outpolled the pack of Democratic hopefuls. Twenty percent of Democrats supported the Connecticut senator and former vice presidential nominee for their party's 2004 presidential nomination. Fifteen percent supported Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt. The eventual nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, garnered 13 percent of the vote.<br /><br />In August 1991, polls showed that the two top Democratic presidential candidates were New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, with 22 percent and 18 percent, respectively. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who would eventually win his party's nomination, was polling at only 5 percent.<br /><br />In June 1987, Jesse Jackson sat in first place with 18 percent support among Democrats, 7 points ahead of eventual winner Michael Dukakis.</blockquote>At this point, polls are mostly a combination of name recognition along with the temporary choices of those most passionate about the election. That explains the temporary bumps for candidates such as Michelle Bachmann or Fred Thompson. Then the campaign gets more serious and voters get more serious about their choices.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/13/confederate-flag-double-standards-column/30075325/">Jonah Goldberg notes a strange anomaly.</a> We are now at a state in our country where there is zero tolerance for symbols and monuments to the Confederacy, but we're supposed to be all sensitive and understanding about Islamic terrorists.<blockquote>It would be an improvement if the left could stick to either of its double standards. Personally, I think fellow Americans — even ones who wear Lynyrd Skynyrd shirts — deserve some of the nuance and understanding so many reserve for Islam extremism. But if you're going to take your zero tolerance for symbols of 19th century slavery so seriously, maybe you should show the same myopic zealotry with regard to the forces who are enslaving people right now.</blockquote>Add in how Islamists treat women and gays. Certainly, this is much more of a pressing problem than Southerners who still treasure symbols of the Confederacy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421129/print">Thomas Sowell writes </a>about how ludicrous all these increasing demands to rid our nation of any monument to the Confederacy and its heros are. <blockquote>Now there are rumblings of demands that statues of Robert E. Lee and other southern leaders be destroyed — and if that is done, it will only lead to new demands, perhaps to destroy the Jefferson Memorial because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. And if that is done, no doubt there will be demands that the city of Washington be renamed, for the same reason.<br /><br />In short, there is no stopping point, only unending strife as far as the eye can see. And just what will that accomplish? It could ultimately accomplish the killer’s dream of racial polarization and violence.<br /><br />Neither blacks nor whites will be better off if that happens. With all the very real problems in this society, can we really spare the time and the wasted energy of trying to refight a civil war that ended before our great-grandparents were born?<br /><br />The past is irrevocable. We cannot change the smallest detail of what some people did to other people after both have gone to their graves.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the old South has already changed. There is no way that the South of the mid 20th century would have elected a woman of Indian ancestry to be governor of South Carolina or a man of Indian ancestry to be governor of Louisiana, much less have southern states that voted for a black president of the United States.<br /><br />Perhaps the strongest evidence of the changes is that the black migrations out of the South 100 years ago have now reversed — with younger and better-educated blacks leading the new migrations from the North to the South. When people vote with their feet, that tells us a lot more than any polls.<br /><br />If the past is out of our hands, what is in our hands today are the present and the future — and both have big challenges. Whatever policies or practices we consider need to be judged by their actual consequences, not by their rhetoric.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-91184958674377753892015-07-15T11:02:00.000-04:002015-07-15T11:02:30.271-04:00Cruising the Web<a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2568247#.VaVb-8_A2Zo.twitter">Philip Klein lists six notable U.S. concessions in the Iran deal. </a> Any one of them would be appalling. The contrast between what the administration was saying just a couple of years ago and what was finally concluded is stark. The administration used to say that Iran would have to completely suspend uranium enrichment. Not so much today.<blockquote>Obama, in touting Tuesday's deal, boasted "Iran will remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges." But two-thirds of centrifuges is equivalent to 6,000 — or roughly four times more than what was just months ago seen as the ceiling. Furthermore, the "removed" centrifuges won't be dismantled, they will merely be stored.</blockquote>Iran gets to preserve their underground fortified nuclear bunker. They get to buy arms in five years and ballistic missiles in eight years. They will have access to their frozen assets so that they will be even better able to fund terrorists.<blockquote>Within six months to a year, Iran will have access to $100 billion to $150 billion in unfrozen assets due to the unwinding of sanctions, a total that doesn't include the economic windfall to come once international firms begin doing business in Iran. As a leading sponsor of terrorism according to the State Department, Iran would thus have more money available to distribute to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.<br /><br />Initially, the Obama administration argued that all of the sanctions being lifted would exclusively have to do with the nuclear program – this was their way of justifying why they didn't make Iranian sponsorship of terrorism or human rights violations a part of any deal. On Apr. 2, the White House press release outlining the parameters of the deal said, "U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal." But the final deal provides much broader sanctions relief to Iranian financial institutions and individuals. The deal even unwinds sanctions against Qasem Soleiman, commander of the Quds Force, which has provided aid to Hamas and Hezbollah, and killed American soldiers in Iraq.</blockquote>And don't believe the President's claims that the sanctions can be snapped back if Iran violates the deal. As if China and Russia will sign on ever again to such sanctions. <br /><br />And the claim that the world will be able to inspect Iran's facilities is bogus.<blockquote>Though inspectors would have access to Iranian facilities, they would not have "anytime, anywhere" inspections. Instead, the inspections must be done in consultation with Iran, and the agreement provides various ways for Iran to delay inspections for up to 24 days – meaning they'd have plenty of time to hide any nuclear work.</blockquote><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br />Another terrible aspect of the Iran deal is that <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/07/14/do-not-forget-them-americans-held-in-iran-not-part-nuke-deal/">Kerry and Obama failed to do enough to achieve freedom for Americans being held prisoner in Iran.</a> Kerry says that he pressed for their release and will continue to do so. Really? Kerry's leverage was so weak with Iran that he couldn't even get them to give up the four Americans they're holding? <br /><br /><br />David French reminds us about <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421159/print">our partners in peace.</a><blockquote>I wanted to highlight <a href="http://jcpa.org/killing-americans-allies-irans-war/">this report, by Colonel (ret.) Richard Kemp and Major (ret.) Chris Driver-Williams</a>, that comprehensively outlines Iran’s acts of war against the United States. Some lowlights:<blockquote>Iranian military action, often working through proxies using terrorist tactics, has led to the deaths of well over a thousand American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade and a half.<br /><br />Throughout the course of the Iraq campaign, a variety of weapons flowed into the country through direct purchases by the government of Iran. These included Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), a shaped charge designed to penetrate armor. These weapons – often camouflaged as rocks – were identical to those employed by Hizbullah against Israeli forces. In 2006, the British Telegraph revealed that three Iranian factories were “mass producing” the roadside EFP bombs used to kill soldiers in Iraq . . . <br /><br />Iran paid Taliban fighters $1,000 for each U.S. soldier they killed in Afghanistan. The Sunday Times reported that a Taliban operative received $18,000 from an Iranian firm in Kabul as reward for an attack in 2010 that killed several Afghan government troops and destroyed an American armored vehicle.</blockquote></blockquote>This is why David French calls this deal a <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421163/iran-nuclear-deal-obama-catastrophe">stimulus package for jihadists.</a><blockquote>Make no mistake, the current Iranian regime has been waging a nearly continual, low-intensity military conflict with the United States since 1979, when it seized the American embassy in Tehran and held more than 50 Americans hostage for 444 days. Since then it has engineered terror attacks in Beirut and Saudi Arabia that killed hundreds of Americans, engaged in open hostilities against American warships in the Persian Gulf, and planned and directed deadly attacks on American troops in Iraq. Its unstinting support for the Afghan Taliban continues unabated to this very day.<br /><br />By every conventional concept of international law, these aggressive, deadly acts have created a state of war between the United States and Iran, a war in which the American response has been minimal and ineffectual. So Iran just keeps pushing the envelope. It currently holds a number of American citizens as de-facto hostages, including an American pastor — Saeed Abedini — held only because of his Christian faith. Abedini has reportedly suffered severe abuse in prison, including beatings so harsh they caused him chronic internal bleeding.<br /><br />Against this backdrop, the Obama administration has reached a deal that will directly enrich Iran with billions of dollars in new economic activity, and, worse still, will gradually ease the international arms embargo the country faces. All in exchange for a series of promises that even if kept will only slow — as opposed to stopping — Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The world’s most prolific terror-exporting nation keeps its nuclear program, maintains its support for anti-American jihadists, receives the mother of all economic-stimulus packages, and gains access to the international arms market. What’s not to love?</blockquote><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1599474603&asins=1599474603&linkId=EE5KEFIFIIPPSR2D&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br />And somehow Obama is so deluded that <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/14/the-iran-deal-s-missing-ingredient.html">he thinks that this deal will lead to a true friendship between Iran and the United States</a>. Yeah, that's going to happen.<br /><br />So what are Democrats saying about the deal? <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421175/print">They're lying about what is in it.</a><blockquote>We now know how the Obama administration and its friends will sell the deal with Iran: <i>lie</i>.<br /><br />Here’s Represenative Don Beyer, Democrat of Virginia, telling MSNBC why he’ll vote for the Iran deal: “Thanks to the Obama administration’s negotiations, Iran’s nuclear program will be under lock, key and camera 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The eyes of the international community are on every centrifuge, every ounce of uranium, in all of Iran’s nuclear facilities.” <br /><br />Completely false: “UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iran military sites, but they aren’t immediate or even guaranteed. Any inspections at those sites would need to be approved by a joint commission composed of one member from each of the negotiating parties. The process for approving those inspections could take as many as 24 days.”<br /><br />There have been a lot of depressing lies from this administration and its friends — “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” “I didn’t call the Islamic State a ‘JV’ team“; “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” – but the fact that the administration and its allies will lie to the public about an issue as important as Iran’s nuclear program is thoroughly dispiriting.<br /><br />It’s almost as dispiriting as the administration’s blind faith that this deal, which allows Iranian nuclear research to continue, won’t set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and make a future nuclear conflict much, much more likely. </blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=primeday&banner=0PP07G32K0XD5NP65HG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=2GKHAORV2E3SRSC2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />For those who think that Donald Trump is honestly speaking his mind on illegal immigration should pay attention to<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/donald-trump-running-for-president/398345/"> what else he's said. </a>He's just as much a flip-flopper as Hillary Clinton.<blockquote>Thus it is worth noting that, after Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss, Donald Trump told the website Newsmax that Republicans would continue to lose elections if they came across as mean-spirited and unwelcoming to people of color. Democrats were kind toward illegal immigrants, Trump said, whereas Romney “had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal. It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote. He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.” He added that the GOP needs a comprehensive solution to “this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful, productive citizens of this country.”<br /><br />These discordant statements praising and savaging immigrants are not entirely unlike one another—they’re both framed as bold efforts to tell it like it is. Donald Trump is a master at that affectation. He seems as if he is fearlessly stating his core convictions, consequences be damned, even when he is being a shameless poseur. </blockquote>Trump is willing to exacerbate feelings against immigrants, legal or otherwise, in this country just so he can get more publicity and perhaps climb in the polls. That is atrocious.<br /><br />I'm with <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420974/print">Mona Charen on Trump.</a><blockquote>While I like a good brawl as much as the next person, it seems that Trump is the answer only if the question is: Why can’t we get more oafish egomaniacs into politics? Just when the Republican party needs finesse and sensitivity when discussing immigration; just when it needs to focus on issues that unite all sectors of the electorate, including Hispanic and Asian voters; it gets a blowhard with all the nuance of a grenade.<br /><br />Trump’s smear about Mexican immigrants was about as far away as you can get from Ronald Reagan’s “Hispanics are Republicans, they just don’t know it.” He tarred most Mexican immigrants as drug dealers, criminals, and rapists, allowing only as an afterthought that some may be good people. He claimed to have discussed the matter with border guards. (Would those officers please step forward?) In any case, crude and vulgar people always preen that they are brave truth tellers.<br /><br />Trump has achieved his objective — making himself the center of attention — but he has subtracted from our sum total of knowledge about the immigration issue. According to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Immigration Policy Center, only 1.6 percent of immigrant males between the ages of 18 and 39 are incarcerated, compared with 3.3 percent of the native-born. There are terrible stories of immigrants committing crimes, and it’s certainly fair to demand that criminal aliens be deported with dispatch. Sanctuary cities are a disgrace. But just as Dylann Roof doesn’t represent white people, Mexican rapists don’t represent anyone other than themselves either.</blockquote><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />When you hear members of the Obama administration saying that they're determined to provide the best health care for our nation's veterans, <a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/one-third-of-veterans-awaiting-va-healthcare-already-dead-report-says/">remember this</a>.<blockquote>According to a leaked internal document from the Department of Veterans Affairs, nearly one-third of veterans awaiting healthcare coverage at the VA have already died.<br /><br />The April 2015 report, leaked to the Huffington Post by VA whistleblower Scott Davis, indicates that 238,657 of the 847,882 veterans waiting to be enrolled in VA healthcare are already dead, suggesting that over 28 percent of veterans applying for health coverage perished while waiting for it.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/12/stephen-moore-the-death-of-socialism/print/">Stephen Moore analyzes </a>how the weak economies of European states prove that socialism has been a failure. Keynesianism has not worked.<blockquote>But the last decade could be described as the comeback of socialism. In response to the financial crisis, nations foolheartedly turned to central governments to steer them out of crisis. Government debt, spending and regulatory activity soared all across Europe and in the United States. The Keynesian model that government welfare spending as a "stimulus" came storming back in vogue — nowhere more so than in the United States.<br /><br />Many countries, including Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France — as well as the United States — experimented with quasi-socialist governments. Now the bitter price is being paid.<br /><br />This more than anything else explains why the world is twisting in financial turmoil in recent weeks. Not just Greece, but at least a half a dozen nations appear to be on the verge of bankruptcy because they can't afford the social welfare states they have, and the bills are coming due. The socialists are getting hammered.<br /><br />Meanwhile, China's government is responding to a manufactured stock market bubble with more promises of Keynesian monetary and fiscal stimulus — interventions that will work there as well as they have in Japan and the United States.<br /><br />Wall Street is acting as though more government intervention will calm financial markets, when it is excessive intervention of government that created the crisis in the first place. Greece is socialism on steroids — a place where the government gives a lot of things away for free, few people work, and millions receive government pensions, paychecks or welfare benefits. Fifty percent of young people don't have a job and over half of Greeks retire before age 60. The wagon is full and no one is left to pull it. Now Greece thinks that the Germans or the, EU, the IMF or the United States is going to pay for it all. The crash is coming very soon and the standard of living in Greece will surely plummet. Thank you, socialism.<br /><br />But there are so many more dominoes that could come crashing down. Almost all of Europe is a financial sink hole. The debts as a share of gross domestic product are 100 percent or more and the public spending as a share of GDP is now just shy of 50 percent.<br /><br />Pundits on the left such as Paul Krugman can only lamely respond to the European meltdown by arguing that there is "too much austerity" even as debt loads keeps rising every year. The one nation in Europe that didn't use massive Keynesian stimulus, Germany, is the one place where the economy is still functioning.</blockquote>But somehow that evidence of failure totally eludes liberals who are advocating more of the same.<br /><br />Such policies that these leftists advocate would only deepen the problems that states are <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/public_pensions_prove_zero_sum_economics.html">facing with their public pensions of which Chicago is the worst example.</a><blockquote>The results are startling. Today, Chicago’s public sector unions are underfunded, according to the City itself, by $26.8 billion. This is just the City of Chicago. When the state debt is added, the total amount of debt owed by each Chicago household to the city and state rise, according to the Illinois Policy Institute, to $61,000. SEC Commissioner Gallagher stated the number is $88,000.<br /><br />Pension payments to Chicago public union employees have become so high that today all the property taxes paid by the households of Chicago go exclusively to pensions. The operating expenses are paid by additional taxes on things from packs of cigarettes, to gasoline, sales tax, and cable TV bills. Given these facts about how Chicago’s property taxes are used, it’s not surprising that its new Republican governor wants to freeze property taxes to rescue the middle class’s paychecks from Democrats.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Only those who know nothing about economics would be surprised by <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421109/shock-federal-student-aid-leads-increased-tuition-costs-ian-tuttle">this conclusion.</a><blockquote>Increases in federal student aid appear to lead to higher college tuition costs, according to a new study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York</blockquote><br />Here is<a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-is-bernie-sanders-in-a-pantsuit/article/2568174?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20-%2007/14/15&utm_medium=email"> an image</a> to rile a delicate stomach: "Hillary Clinton is Bernie Sanders in a pantsuit"<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/scott-walker-is-overstating-his-blue-state-appeal-20150713">Josh Kraushaar analyzes the election results</a> from Scott Walker's three elections in order to explain why GOP voters shouldn't be so sure that Walker has the appeal he thinks he has in blue states. Kraushaar points out that all of the elections in which Walker won the governorship were off-year elections when the electorate was less Democratic than it might be in a presidential election year.<br /><br />Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-71585643100175456722015-07-14T06:52:00.000-04:002015-07-14T06:52:00.225-04:00Cruising the WebPhilip Klein lists <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/17-ways-hillarys-big-economic-speech-rehashed-obama/article/2568178">"17 ways Hillary's big economic speech rehashed Obama."</a><blockquote>Hillary Clinton on Monday delivered a much-publicized speech in which she was supposed to lay out her economic agenda. In reality, she just rehashed President Obama's. Her speech ultimately sounded like another Obama State of the Union address, only with much more robotic delivery.<br /><br />As I've noted before, everything that Clinton does during the 2016 campaign should be viewed through the prism of her desperate need to hang onto the coalition of voters that elected Obama twice. On Monday, Clinton left no doubt that she intended to run for Obama's third term.</blockquote>The <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=A+Third+Term+for+Obamanomics">WSJ writes on the same theme.</a><blockquote>Hillary Clinton is running for a third term, and it isn’t her husband’s. The economic agenda that the Democratic anointee laid out on Monday in New York City sounded like a bootleg from President Obama’s stereo—with the volume turned up and stuck on repeat.<br /><br />Mrs. Clinton’s theme is that “we have to build a growth and fairness economy,” which sounds like a tacit admission that the Obama policies of high taxation, heavy regulation and government income redistribution have produced stagnation and unfairness. She was explicit that real incomes aren’t rising, investment is too slow and opportunities are too few, especially for lower-skilled workers and minorities. The economy “still isn’t delivering for most Americans,” she rightly averred.<br /><br />Yet Mrs. Clinton never explained why, other than to suggest that Republicans or businesses that want to make too much money are somehow to blame. She slid past the agenda that has dominated economic policy since 2007, and thus she wants to continue delivering the same beatings until morale improves. She hopes voters won’t notice the contradiction.<br /><br />Paychecks stalled, year after year? Mrs. Clinton has an app for that, although it won’t be Uber. She said “the so-called gig economy” is “raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.” So she’ll use some combination of government spending and coercion of businesses to institute paid family leave, a right to child care, a higher minimum wage, mandated overtime and much else....<br /><br />Mrs. Clinton evoked a return to the tight labor markets and 1990s boom of the Bill Clinton years. The irony is that the modern Democratic Party has moved far to the left of the President who repealed Glass-Steagall and cut capital gains tax rates, and she is now positioning herself as the tribune of this government-centric liberalism.<br /><br />It follows, then, that Mrs. Clinton embraced ObamaCare, only more so. She said she’d lower out-of-pocket insurance spending and make prescription drug costs more affordable, presumably through price controls. Mrs. Clinton also said she’d “enhance” Social Security, whatever that means, though it won’t be cheap. She also went beyond Mr. Obama’s universal preschool to call for a new program—also undefined—for “children in that zero to four age group.”<br /><br />This even-more-liberal-than-Obama pitch raises the question of whether this reflects the real Hillary Clinton. She always was more of a true believer than Bill, but those policy instincts went mute after HillaryCare imploded in 1994. Maybe now in the wake of Mr. Obama’s tenure, and with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren prodding her, she feels she can return to her liberal druthers.<br /><br />Her challenge will be persuading voters that her agenda will somehow work better in the next four years than it has in the last seven. Presidents who elevate fairness over growth usually end up with less of both, and based on Monday’s speech Mrs. Clinton is doubling down.</blockquote>I think we have a theme as <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421116/print">Charles C. W. Cooke notes </a>the same aspect of Hillary's speech.<blockquote>It is a supreme irony of modern American life that the political movement that terms itself “progressive” is, in the economic realm at least, increasingly passionate about the status quo. Speaking today about the burgeoning “gig economy,” presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton could not help herself but to set modernity firmly within aging ideological tram-lines. Developments such as AirBnB, Zaarly, Uber, DogVacay, and RelayRides, Clinton conceded, are not likely to “go away” any time soon. But they are worrying nonetheless. Indeed, the “sharing economy,” she proposed, is “polarizing” and it is disruptive — guilty of no less than “displacing or downgrading blue-collar jobs.” Technological advances, she concluded, must not “determine our destiny.”<br /><br />And who <i>should </i>“determine our destiny”? Why, Hillary Clinton of course!<br /><br />In the eyes of us free-marketeers, the teams behind the host of new peer-to-peer services are no less than digital liberators. For us, the arrival of a system such as Uber is salutary, not scary: It is an end to waiting in the rain for a state-approved cab; it is the key to a transportation experience a cut above that which is provided by the cartels; it is the source of golden opportunities for those who wish to construct odd or custom-built work schedules or to make money without answering to a boss. That a few ingenious programmers have found a way around the artificial scarcity, state-union collusion, and high barriers to entry that The Man has seen fit to impose is, in our view, an extremely positive development. More of this, please.<br /><br />But for Hillary Clinton? It is a death knell. Like Bill DeBlasio before her, Clinton has seen the list of newly available iPhone apps, and she has grasped her own obsolescence.<br /><br />If he is smart, the eventual Republican nominee will spend 2016 casting Clinton as the spirit animal of a washed-out and intellectually bankrupt generation that belongs nowhere near the levers of power. If they are really smart, the broader party will make this case broadly and perpetually — and long after next year’s election is over. All political movements are guilty of nostalgia, certainly. But few of them refuse to acknowledge their sentimentality in quite the same way as does the wing of the Democratic party to which Clinton is currently attempting to agglutinate herself. From self-described “conservatives,” one expects a Burkean preference for the tried and tested. From “progressives” — and yes, Hillary used the word today – not so much.<br /><br />Like Bill DeBlasio before her, Clinton has seen the list of newly available iPhone apps, and she has grasped her own obsolescence.<br />Economically, the Clinton-Sanders-Warren-O’Malley project is stuck squarely in 1938. Theirs is a country in which tax rates can be set without reference to global competition; in which the taxi commission and the trade union are the heroes while the entrepreneurs and the dissenters are a royal pain in the ass; in which families can simply not be trusted to determine which services suit their needs and which do not. It’s a country in which our heinously outdated, grossly illiberal, neo-Prussian educational system is to be set more firmly in place — even as it crumbles and falls. It is a country in which the state must determine which firms are Good and which firms are Bad, and reward or punish them according to its whim. It is a country in which Upton Sinclair is an up-and-coming writer, and in which anybody who doubts the efficacy of federal control is in danger of falling headfirst into a rendering vat.<br /><br />Most important, perhaps, it is an America in which one’s opportunity to customize one’s life is reserved to the social and sexual spheres. Sure, the freelance writer in Brooklyn and the on-off driver who picks him up might <i>think </i>that they are entering into a mutually beneficial contract. The backpacking student from California and the Chicago apartment owner who hosts him might <i>think </i>that they have been liberated by technology, and the stay-at-home parent who makes knick-knacks and sells them on Etsy might <i>think </i>that he has a sweet deal. But from Hillary Clinton’s intolerably prescriptive perspective, they have failed to think through the consequences of their arrangements. One can tell a great deal about a person’s broader worldview by asking them a simple question: “Should one person who hopes to pay another person to perform a legal service be restricted from doing so by the state?” That Clinton used the words “crack” and “down” when attempting to answer that inquiry should worry you.</blockquote>Kevin Williamson titles his comments on the speech, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421130/print">"Herself vs. the 21st Century."</a><blockquote>Hillary Rodham Clinton does not seem to understand the modern economy; worse, she does not understand her own economic thinking. The most notable example of this in her speech was that she blasted Jeb Bush for suggesting that one way to raise Americans’ incomes was for Americans to work more hours, and then complained that American women aren’t working enough hours relative to women in other developed countries. Or: Americans work too much except when they’re not working enough....<br /><br />Social engineers of the Obama-Clinton-Bismarck school dislike Uber and the informal economy for the same reason they dislike entrepreneurs: Employees are easier to manage. Employees are, typically, pliant. (F. A. Hayek was right to believe that the move from small proprietorships to a society of corporate salarymen would make centralization and autocracy more socially acceptable.) If the social engineers could figure out a way of getting the corporations and the salarymen without the entrepreneurs, they surely would.</blockquote><br />So just who is the candidate running her campaign to the tune of "Yesterday"?<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=primeday&banner=0PP07G32K0XD5NP65HG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=2GKHAORV2E3SRSC2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />The<a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-speaker-20150710"> National Journal takes a long look </a>at Marco Rubio's time as Speaker of the Florida House. The takeaways are that he often had to compromise politically because the governor at the time, Charlie Crist, would not support conservative policies and the state Republicans often followed Crist who had a high approval rating at the time. However, Rubio's management style was to reach out to other legislators, even those with whom he disagreed. Clearly, not a management style that Barack Obama believes in. I like this description of his style.<blockquote>"I think you can call him a conservative pragmatist," says David Simmons, a Republican who served under Rubio in the House. "There was a need to be principled, but there was a need to be pragmatic about what you can obtain. … Throughout the time he was speaker, I think that the view was we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in any piece of legislation."</blockquote>I know that conservative ideologues are quite happy to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There are many who would rather fail than compromise. I've never supported that approach. In fact, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" has often been one of my favorite sayings and my advice to my own children and my students in their lives. I would remind discontented conservatives of <a href="http://www.quotes.net/authors/Ronald%20Reagan">this quote from Ronald Reagan.</a><blockquote>Die-hard conservatives thought that if I couldn't get everything I asked for, I should jump off the cliff with the flag flying-go down in flames. No, if I can get 70 or 80 percent of what it is I'm trying to get ... I'll take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future.</blockquote>Exactly. <br /><br />I await a similar examination of Hillary Clinton's leadership style and accomplishments as Secretary of State.<br /><br />I'm sure <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2568069#.VaKkNcBZ-RI.twitter">this is a shock</a> to everyone:<blockquote>Hillary Clinton's family charity has accepted contributions from donors accused of violating sanctions against Iran.<br /><br />Her husband has also received a generous payment for a speech hosted by a company with financial interests in Iran.<br /><br />The ties to Iranian business raise questions about Clinton's cautious support of a nuclear deal that would lift sanctions that prevent companies close to her from making money in Iran.</blockquote>And then there is <a href="https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-attacks-bank-paid-bill-clinton-donated-clinton-foundation_990050.html">this</a>: <blockquote>Hillary Attacks Bank that Paid Bill Clinton, Donated to Clinton Foundation</blockquote>And <a href="https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-attacks-high-frequency-traders-has-fundraiser-planned-one_990055.html">this</a>:<blockquote>Hillary Attacks High-Frequency Traders but Has Fundraiser Planned With One</blockquote><br />Now it's not just Ted Cruz vs. the <i>New York Times,</i> but also <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/amazon-no-evidence-of-bulk-sales-for-ted-cruz-book-210374.html">Amazon and HarperCollins vs. the <i>New York Times</i>.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/12/the-massive-flip-floppery-of-donald-trump-explained-in-238-seconds/?">Chris Cillizza posts</a> a Meet the Press 113-second clip of Donald Trump's flip flops. I'm sure that MTP will run a similar video for Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's flip flops. <br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/federal-cybersecurity-needs-improvement-120061.html?hp=rc3_4#.VaRfTvlViko">writes in Politico </a>that "federal cybersecurity needs improvement." Thank you, Captain Obvious. He writes that it is a priority for the President and for himself. They should have communicated that <a href="https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/day-hack-announced-opm-released-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-discrimination-guide_988504.html">priority to the Office of Personnel Management.</a><blockquote>On the OPM website, the agency has seven <a href="https://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-director/top-priorities/">"top priorities"</a> listed. The first two are "Honoring the Workforce" and "Build a More Diverse and Engaged Workforce". Number four on the list is "IT Improvement" to "streamline and update IT systems" and number five is "Background Investigations" to "lead efforts to strengthen the background investigations program across government." The priorities list does not include any direct references to "security."</blockquote><br />And perhaps Mr. Johnson <a href="http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/071015-761140-healthcare-gov-site-has-major-security-flaws-too.htm">should get right on this.</a><blockquote>Healthcare.gov, on the other hand, now collects information on millions of private citizens who apply for ObamaCare coverage at this federal exchange, and operates a data hub that connects a multitude of other government databases.<br /><br />It, too, appears to suffer from the same indifference to cybersecurity as OPM.<br /><br />In its rush to get Healthcare.gov launched, the administration ran roughshod over security standards. And while some work has been done since, a Government Accountability Office report last fall warned that "weaknesses remain both in the processes used for managing information security and privacy as well as the technical implementation of IT security controls."<br /><br />Among the problems cited by the GAO: The federal exchange hasn't "always required or enforced strong password controls, adequately restricted access to the Internet, consistently implemented software patches, and properly configured an administrative network."<br /><br />Eight months later, the Obama administration still hasn't conducted the risk assessments it recommended, according to Gregory Wilshusen, an information security expert at GAO.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Since liberals like to ask conservatives to apologize for various problems, Dan Bongino lists <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/07/7-Things-the-Left-Should-Apologize-For">"7 things the Left should apologize for."</a><br /><br />And <a href="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/197982#.VaQYaflVikp">these are the peace partners </a>that John Kerry and Barack Obama are feverishly working to conclude an agreement with.<blockquote>Not only was last Friday "Death to Israel Day" in Iran, and a third deadline for Iran nuclear talks that like its predecessors was ignored - ironically it also was the launch date for an Iranian cellphone game that has players in the Islamic state practice raining potentially nuclear-tipped missiles on Israel.<br /><br />The semi-official Fars News Agency reported on Saturday that the launch of the game - entitled "Missile Strike" - was specifically timed to coincide with "Death to Israel Day," officially known as Quds Day or Jerusalem Day, during which millions of Iranians protested in a call to destroy the Jewish state.<br /><br />In the game, users launch Iranian missile attacks against the Israeli port city of Haifa, the third largest city in Israel which is home to just under 300,000 people, and which ironically has an extremely large Arab population.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Here is <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/due-process-win-california-judge-rules-campus-kangaroo-court-unfair/article/2568180">a victory for justice</a>. I'd like to see rulings like this across the land. <blockquote>A California judge just issued a win to proponents of due process in campus sexual assault hearings.<br /><br />Judge Joel M. Pressman deemed a University of California-San Diego campus hearing "unfair," ruling that the hearing panel limited the accused student's right to due process.<br /><br />The accused student, listed as John Doe, had sued the university after being suspended for sexual assault without due process. John claimed that his right to cross-examine his accuser and adverse witnesses was limited, and Pressman agreed.<br /><br />John was only allowed to submit questions to the hearing panel to be asked of his accuser, named in the lawsuit as Jane Roe. Of the 32 questions submitted by John, only nine were asked, and only after the questions were reviewed by the hearing chair.<br /><br />"The Court determines that it is unfair to Petitioner that his questions were reviewed by the Panel Chair for her alone to determine whether or not the question would be asked and then answered by the witness," Pressman wrote. "While the Court understands the need to prevent additional trauma to potential victims of sexual abuse, this can be achieved in a less restrictive manner. The limiting of the questions in this case curtailed the right of confrontration [sic] crucial to any definition of a fair hearing."<br /><br />Pressman noted that seven questions not asked by the panel chair dealt with text messages between John and Jane. The panel chair also paraphrased a question regarding John and Jane's relationship after the alleged sexual assault and allowed Jane to claim that their post-encounter relationship was not relevant. Further, Jane's questions were not given the same prior review as John's.</blockquote>These kangaroo court hearings on college campuses for allegations of sexual assault sound more and more like something the Queen of Hearts would preside over.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br />Good for<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/13/arbys-responds-to-low-level-vegetarian-outrage-with-cheeky-help-line-instead-of-caving/"> Arby's.</a><br /><br />I had just been thinking that our family trip last year to London was shorter and easier than our trip to Albuquerque. And then I <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/world/heathrow-airport-delays/index.html">read this story.</a><blockquote>Climate change protesters, demonstrating against a possible third runway, caused delays Monday at London's Heathrow Airport.<br /><br />"A group of people is currently staging a protest on the northern runway," Heathrow spokeswoman Rachel Betts said during the demonstration. "We are working closely with the police who are dealing with the incident."<br /><br />A group calling itself Plane Stupid organized the protest.<br /><br />Activists chained themselves to gates and displayed banners on the tarmac. One banner said, "No ifs. No buts. No third runway."<br /><br />In other images posted by protesters, authorities appeared to use bolt cutters to remove the activists from the gates.<br /><br />"Both runways are open, although there will still be delays and a few cancellations -- we are sorry for the disruption to passengers," Betts said. "Our priority remains to ensure the safe running of the airport."</blockquote>Lovely.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-drug-lord-escapes-mexico-prison-20150711-story.html#page=1">"El Chapo" Guzman's escape tunnel </a>sounds like something out of The Great Escape, one of my favorite movies.<br /><br />And yes, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/11/enjoy-your-more-expensive-chipotle-san-francisco/">there are consequences to raising the minimum wage.</a>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-39078545833091933272015-07-13T06:32:00.000-04:002015-07-13T06:32:00.559-04:00Cruising the WebI'm back from a lovely vacation in New Mexico with my family. What a wonderful state to visit - it has a perfect mix for a vacation: beautiful nature, art, history, and great food. Traveling on United Airlines was not so wonderful. Although, we were indeed flying on the Wednesday when United's system went down and its planes were grounded, that didn't affect us because we were scheduled for later in the day after they fixed things. However, we did have an unfortunate experience flying out there while we were transferring in Houston. There was a storm there and United was forced to cancel several flights. Apparently, if weather is bad, after a period of time, they just cancel flights rather than pushing them back. That was bad enough, but their communication with passengers and their customer service was just awful. They only had three service agents in our area of the airport to deal with hundreds of passengers. We had to wait in line for about an hour and a half and eventually got to Albuquerque about 14 hours after we were originally scheduled to arrive. Then, on our way back, we got to Houston and were again delayed for about 2 1/2 hours because of mechanical problems with the airplane. And so we arrived back in Washington, D.c. after the Metro was shut down for the night and had to pay for a taxi. I would be happy to never fly through Houston ever again and I will work assiduously to never fly United again.<br /><br />As I was driving down the coast on Thursday and listening to both news on satellite radio for a while, I was struck by how CNN seemed to be spending the entire day on the Confederate flag coming down in South Carolina. Really? That is what they think is the most important story of the day? I just don't get it. Does anyone think that racism and arguments over race will change one iota just because the flag is now in a museum? Will black poverty be affected at all by the flag coming down? It's discouraging to see how so much of our arguments are over symbolism instead of substance.<br /><br />So that is why I was a lot happier to spend my driving time alternating between music and listening to sports radio making fun of DeAndre Jordan. More and more, I'm finding that political talk is so aggravating, that I'd much prefer to read sports news.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=primeday&banner=0PP07G32K0XD5NP65HG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=2GKHAORV2E3SRSC2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />I'm getting caught up on all the political kerfuffles that were going on while I was busy touring national monuments and art galleries and eating sopapillas. I find out that we're all supposed to be appalled that <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/jeb-bush-work-more-hours-quote-2015-7">Jeb Bush said </a>that people will need to work longer hours if our economy is going to grow. Well, duh. I know that the Democrats want to twist his words to mean that people aren't working hard enough, but his meaning was quite clear. Too many people are underemployed. Too many are working part-time jobs instead of the full-time jobs they wish they could have. Even <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-jeb-bush-conservatives-2015-7">Bernie Sanders agrees.</a><blockquote>"Of course we need full-time jobs rather than part-time jobs," Sanders said.<br /><br />"If he is talking about the need for more full-time jobs than part time jobs, that's absolutely correct," Sanders said.</blockquote><br />So who does <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/11/tribes-blast-wannabe-native-american-professor.html">this remind you of?</a><blockquote>The Cherokee Nation is denouncing scholar-activist Andrea Smith for falsely claiming to be a member of the tribe. Beyond untrue, the ethnic fraud is a painful reminder of their past.<br />“I have always been, and will always be Cherokee.”<br /><br />This is University of California, Riverside professor Andrea Smith’s official response to recent allegations that she is not Cherokee, an identity that she has claimed throughout her decades-long career as a prominent figure in Native American scholarship and activism.<br /><br />In a blog post on Thursday night, Smith maintained that she is Cherokee, that she has “consistently identified [herself] based on what [she] knew to be true,” and that “[t]here have been innumerable false statements made about [her] in the media.”<br /><br />On June 30, research analyst and Cherokee genealogist David Cornsilk confirmed to The Daily Beast that he analyzed Smith’s genealogy at her request twice in the 1990s, finding no evidence of Cherokee ancestry either time. In response to Smith’s latest claim, Cornsilk again told The Daily Beast that she is not Cherokee and challenged her to share her ancestry publicly if she continues to label herself as Cherokee.</blockquote>Shades of <a href="http://humanevents.com/2012/09/04/native-american-delegates-ask-fauxcahontas-to-explain-herself/">Senator Fauxcahontas.</a><blockquote>The Boston Herald reports that “skeptical American Indian delegates – including the great-grandson of Geronimo — are inviting [Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth] Warren to a meeting tomorrow to explain her ancestry claims.”<br /><br />Warren, derided from coast to coast as “Fauxcahontas” for her false claims of Native American ancestry, might find this meeting uncomfortable. The Herald doesn’t mention any Cherokee delegates – the tribe Warren directly offended by billing herself as a minority, based on a ridiculous claim of 1/32nd American Indian ancestry, which a bit of detective work – of the variety that only bloggers seem capable of performing, when high-profile Democrats are involved – exposed as unsupportable. However, representatives of the Apache, Winnebago, and Crow are quoted. Some of them sound conciliatory, but others seem quite angry.<br /><br />For example, Harlyn Geronimo, the aforementioned descendant of the great Apache warrior, and his wife Karen both said they would not vote for someone who misrepresented herself as an American Indian. “I wouldn’t vote for anybody that is being dishonest, and it’s unfair to our people,” said Harlyn, while Karen sounded even more “adamant,” according to the Herald.</blockquote>In case you have forgotten that bit of deception from Senator Warren's biography, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warrens-identity-politics/2012/05/23/gJQAt53clU_story.html">George Will had a good summary back in 2012.</a><blockquote>The kerfuffle that has earned Warren such sobriquets as “Spouting Bull” and “Fauxcahontas” began with reports that Harvard Law School, in routine academic preening about diversity (in everything but thought), listed her as a minority faculty member, as did the University of Pennsylvania when she taught there. She said that some in her family had “high cheekbones like all of the Indians do.” The New England Historic Genealogical Society said that a document confirmed the family lore of Warren’s Cherokee ancestry, but it later backtracked. She has said that she did not know Harvard was listing her as a minority in the 1990s, but Harvard was echoing her: From 1986 through 1995, starting before she came to Harvard, a directory published by the Association of American Law Schools listed her as a minority and says its listings are based on professors claiming minority status.<br /><br />The kerfuffle that has earned Warren such sobriquets as “Spouting Bull” and “Fauxcahontas” began with reports that Harvard Law School, in routine academic preening about diversity (in everything but thought), listed her as a minority faculty member, as did the University of Pennsylvania when she taught there. She said that some in her family had “high cheekbones like all of the Indians do.” The New England Historic Genealogical Society said that a document confirmed the family lore of Warren’s Cherokee ancestry, but it later backtracked. She has said that she did not know Harvard was listing her as a minority in the 1990s, but Harvard was echoing her: From 1986 through 1995, starting before she came to Harvard, a directory published by the Association of American Law Schools listed her as a minority and says its listings are based on professors claiming minority status....<br /><br />She who wants Wall Street “held accountable” is accountable for two elite law schools advertising her minority status. She who accuses Wall Street of gaming the financial system at least collaborated with, and perhaps benefited from, the often absurd obsession with “diversity.”<br /><br />How absurd? Warren says that for almost a decade she listed herself in the AALS directory as a Native American because she hoped to “meet others like me.” This well-educated, highly paid, much-honored (she was a consumer protection adviser to President Obama) member of America’s upper 1 percent went looking for people “who are like I am” among Native Americans?</blockquote><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />Another silly kerfuffle was liberal outrage at Clarence Thomas's dissent in the <i><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/#document/p78">Obergefell v. Hodges</a></i> gay marriage case in which he wrote that human dignity is innate and does not come from the government.<blockquote>The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity<br />because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.</blockquote>Whether you agree or not with Thomas's position on the case, there should be no controversy over his argument that human dignity is innate and can't be taken away by government policies. Yet those on the left erupted in outrage and George Takei, the actor who played Sulu in "Star Trek," said that Clarence Thomas was even a real black man, but was a "clown in blackface" and had "abdicated and abandoned his African-American heritage" with his opinion. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420822/print">Rich Lowry derides this ignorance</a> of the Founding principles of our country.<blockquote>That Takei’s first instinct was to deny the blackness of Clarence Thomas tells us much about the rancid racial essentialism of the Left, which can’t get its head around minorities stepping out of ideological line.<br /><br />That aside, the Left’s freakout is remarkable, since what Thomas wrote represents American Founding 101. Where did Thomas get this outlandish notion of rights and dignity that exist prior to government?<br /><br />Maybe Thomas Jefferson? “We do not claim these,” he wrote of our natural rights, “under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of kings.” Or John Adams? He wrote of rights “antecedent to all earthly government,” “that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws,” “derived from the great Legislator of the universe.”<br /><br />One wonders if anyone disturbed by the Thomas dissent glanced at the Declaration of Independence over the July 4th weekend. It says, as Thomas notes, all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” In case there’s any misunderstanding, the good folks at Merriam-Webster define unalienable as “impossible to take away or give up.”<br /><br />This is a truth that abolitionists wielded against the institution of slavery. The foremost of them, Frederick Douglass, held it strongly. He declared once after suffering a rank act of discrimination: “They cannot degrade Frederick Douglass. The soul that is within me no man can degrade. I am not the one that is being degraded on account of this treatment, but those who are inflicting it upon me.” (Quick — someone ask George Takei if Frederick Douglass was truly black.)</blockquote>I encountered that same ignorance a decade ago when David Von Drehle interviewed me and a liberal blogger, Barbara O'Brien, for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071300569_pf.html">a cover story for the Washington Post Sunday Magazine</a> to contrast two middle-aged female political bloggers from different ends of the political spectrum. He took us on a tour of Washington and had us talk about different issues as we traveled around the city. Apprently, Ms. O'Brien, like George Takei, had no understanding of the Enlightenment ideals underlying the American Revolution.<blockquote>How about the future of the Supreme Court?<br /><br />"Terrifying," O'Brien declares, especially because she thinks Bush might want to elevate Antonin Scalia to chief justice. "He believes the authority of government comes from God," she says. "That's not what we believe as a nation."<br /><br />"Au contraire," counters Newmark. "That is so in keeping with the spirit of the Enlightenment and John Locke."<br /><br />"No," O'Brien insists. "Government takes its powers from the consent of the governed, and not" -- here she begins waggling her fingers at the sky -- "from God."<br /><br />Maybe it's a coincidence, but the sky begins to grow really dark. As the rain approaches, the bloggers decide to skip quickly over the abortion issue -- not much new to say there -- and move their sightseeing indoors. We hail a taxi.<br /><br />Inside the National Museum of American History, Newmark leads the way past the Hall of Presidents to an exhibit on Americans at war. Noticing an enlarged image of the Declaration of Independence, she says, "Look at this!" There is triumph in her voice. She gestures to the opening lines of the document, in which Jefferson rests his argument on "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God."<br /><br />But if she's hoping for an argument, it doesn't come; O'Brien simply shrugs. </blockquote>Yeah, that is the liberal response to being proved wrong. Liberals might not believe that our rights and our human dignity are innate, but it is pure ignorance not to know that that was the ideology that fueled our Founding Fathers. At least my students, when I have them read John Locke and the Declaration of Independence, gain that understanding. They might not agree, but they will understand that natural rights ideology doesn't mean that government gets its powers from God, but that from people whose rights, as Jefferson wrote, are innate. Maybe all those outraged by Justice Thomas should read the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html">Declaration of Independence</a>.<blockquote>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-</blockquote><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420822/print">Rich Lowry explains</a> why this view is so counter to liberal beliefs.<blockquote>The reaction to the Thomas dissent is, in part, about the historical and philosophical illiteracy of his critics. But they also have a profoundly different worldview. The Founders believed we have innate rights that must be protected from government. As Thomas writes, “Our Constitution — like the Declaration of Independence before it — was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from — not provided by — the State.”<br /><br />This notion is anathema to a Left that identifies the state with progress, and that defines freedom much more loosely (not to say nonsensically) as including what government gives us, in an ever-expanding palette of benefits.<br /><br />Thomas is the one firmly grounded in the best of the American tradition, even if his clueless attackers don’t get it. Some of them acted as if he is somehow ignorant of the nature of slavery, even though his forebears were slaves and he grew up in abject poverty in the Jim Crow South. Justice Thomas doesn’t just understand more about the reality of racial discrimination than his critics, but more about America and its ideals.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=backtoschool14&banner=01MKZ2ZB6M826RQECM82&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=5X543UZHY3K6OYIT" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/09/potentially-mortal-threat-to-hillary-s-candidacy.html">Douglas Schoen is wringing his hands </a>over the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton among the progressive electorate.<blockquote>What’s driving the support for Sanders? It doesn’t have that much to do with Sanders himself.<br /><br />It has to do with the issues driving the progressive agenda, along with old- fashioned anger. The Left is fired up about a range of issues, most prominently income inequality.<br /><br />Indeed, perhaps more so than any other topic in the last 50 years, income inequality has become the issue most akin to Vietnam for the Democratic electorate. Clinton’s efforts to move left and accommodate these sentiments have been ham-handed, as in her comment last fall at a Boston rally. “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs,” she told the crowd, trying to tap into the populist-left energy. Other gestures are simply tone-deaf, especially for a candidate trying to rebrand herself as a progressive. When she recently decided to go to the Hamptons again this summer for three weeks, she set herself up for endless barbs by late-night TV hosts and her political opponents.</blockquote>Schoen is still holding on to the hope that Clinton will flame out and Elizabeth Warren, his favored apostle to fight against income inequality will ride in to the rescue. I wonder what Warren thinks as she watches Bernie Sanders playing the role of stalking horse for her.<br /><br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=btsschoolsupplies&banner=18XGB32CXTWNX876NC02&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=ASIMUTH6W5FKSBX2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />So now that<a href="http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0709/Remains-of-Confederate-general-and-KKK-leader-no-longer-welcome-in-historic-park"> Memphis is removing the remains of Nathan Bedford Forrest</a> from where he is buried there, I guess that all our nation's problems with racism are over. Though I do find a rather delicious irony there 15 years too late. I still remember how George W. Bush was pounded with questions about South Carolina flying the Confederate battle flag as if it were his responsibility, but no one asking Al Gore about the monuments celebrating Forrest, the first leader of the KKK, spread out over Tennessee which was, at least, his home state. <br /><br /><a href="http://link.nationalreview.com/view/551d55103b35d0c0438bc8c92tb0r.3lbl/316cb4ce">Jim Geraghty reminds us </a>of some the crazy stuff that Trump has said in the past.<blockquote>Permit me to remind you about Donald Trump’s assessment of President Bush back in 2008:<blockquote>Bush has been so bad, maybe the worst president in the history of this country. He has been so incompetent, so bad, so evil, that I don’t think any Republican could have won.</blockquote>Evil? Evil? Of course, in the same interview, Trump endorsed. . . diplomatic outreach with Iran.<blockquote>You know, you can be enemies with people, whether it’s Iran, Iraq, anyplace else and you can still have dialogue. These people won’t even talk to him. It’s terrible.</blockquote>Wait, there’s more! Check out his assessment of Obama!<blockquote>VAN SUSTEREN: The new president-elect, what are your thoughts? Pretty exciting, it's always exciting when we have a change of power, a transition, but what are your thoughts.<br /><br />TRUMP: It's very exciting we have a new president. It would have been nice if he ended with a 500 point up instead of down. It's certainly very exciting.<br /><br />His speech was great last night. I thought it was inspiring in every way. And, hopefully he's going to do a great job. But the way I look at it, <i>he cannot do worse than Bush.</i> [Emphasis added.]<br /><br />.... </blockquote>(Links in the original) </blockquote>And then here’s his thoughts on health care back in 1999. . .<blockquote>TRUMP: I think you have to have it, and, again, I said I'm conservative, generally speaking, I'm conservative, and even very conservative. But I'm quite liberal and getting much more liberal on health care and other things. I really say: What's the purpose of a country if you're not going to have defensive [sic] and health care?<br /><br />If you can't take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it's all over. I mean, it's no good. So I'm very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care. </blockquote>If only those people thrilled to think that Trump is brave enough to tell it like it is would be aware of some of what Trump has said in the past when it was better for him to sound a whole lot more like a Democrat.<br /><br />It's now <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/ted-cruz-vs-the-new-york-times.php">Ted Cruz vs. the New York Times. </a> Hmmmm. What a bonus for Cruz who has been somewhat overshadowed by Donald Trump in the past week.<br /><br />Jonah Goldberg, who <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-steamrolls-nbc-reporter-takes-shots-at-krauthammer-and-jonah-goldberg/">Trump thinks can't afford to buy pants</a>, thinks <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421045/print">it's time to stage an intervention </a>with the fans of the Donald.<blockquote>Now, before I go on, let me clarify a few things. I get it. The base of the party is angry. They’re angry about Obama’s lawless chicanery on immigration. They’re angry about the GOP’s patented inability to cross the street without stepping on its own d*ck and then having to apologize for it. They’re angry that the Left’s culture warriors are behaving like an invading army that shoots the survivors even after they’ve surrendered. They’re angry that Republicans have to bend over backward so as not to offend anyone, while Democrats have free rein (and at times free reign) to do and to say as they please.<br /><br />Enter Trump, stage left. He makes no apologies. He’s brash. I can understand why some see him as a breath of fresh air. If you want to give him credit for starting a worthwhile debate about sanctuary cities and illegal immigration, fine. I think that argument is way overdone, but certainly reasonable enough.<br /><br />Maybe you just like him. On that, we can respectfully disagree, as there is no accounting for taste. Perhaps you just like his musk and the way it assaults your nostrils, which is fitting, given his line of cologne. Fine.<br /><br />I, on the other hand, find him tedious, tacky, and trite. He’s a bore who overcompensates for his insecurities by talking about how awesome he is, often in the third person. Jonah can’t stand that.<br /><br />You see the next Teddy Roosevelt and all I see is someone who talks big and carries a small schtick.</blockquote>In response to the allegation that he can't buy pants, Goldberg makes this obvious point.<blockquote>More to the point, what I find so gaudy about Trump is his constant reference to the fact that he made a lot of money, and his expectation that it somehow makes him immune to criticism or means that he’s a better person than his GOP competitors, never mind yours truly.<br /><br />Moreover, I find it horribly disappointing that his fans <i>like this about him.</i> If you met someone in real life who talked this way, you would think he’s a jerk. But somehow he’s awesome when he does it on TV?</blockquote>Goldberg than goes on to demonstrate that not only is Trump a Republican in Name ONly, but also a Conservative in Name Only. See Jim Geraghty's post above.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Ron Fournier performs a service by <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/memo-to-hillary-you-re-still-the-problem-20150711">acting as a conduit between Democratic operatives and Hillary Clinton.</a> He claims that several of these people who are close to Hillary and know Fournier from his days as a reporter in Arkansas during Bill Clinton's governorship there are whispering in his ear their fears about Hillary.<blockquote>We're your friends. We love you enough to tell you the truth. Your political advisers and hangers-on mocked our advice to be hyper accessible, honest, authentic, vulnerable, flexible, small, competent, and populist. Take a minute to re-read <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/memo-to-hillary-clinton-you-re-the-problem-20131219">the 2013 memo</a>. We were very specific, particularly in the closing few paragraphs.<br /><br />You didn't listen, Hillary. Now look what you've done.<br /><br />You launched your historic campaign in the worst possible way: walled off from the media and the public – cautious, rigid, and institutional. You may disagree. Your hired guns may have convinced you, for example, that the scripted conversation with selected voters are authentic. They're not. What would be authentic? The Hillary we've long cherished in private: warm, open, and honest – unafraid of making mistakes and owning up to them. We haven't seen that Hillary. More important, the voting public hasn't seen that Hillary. Does she still exist?<br /><br />Which brings us to the matter of trust. Hillary, this makes us want to cry. We can't figure out why you would compromise the most important commodity of leadership over such banalities. Why take money from foreign nations while serving as secretary of State? Why take money from foreign leaders who hate women? Why not comply with White House rules – fair and ethical guidelines designed to protect the reputation of your family's (wonderful) charitable foundation? You know this has always bothered us: Why would you and Bill blur so many lines between foundation money, your personal finances, and your government work? That's not how you operated in Arkansas.<br /><br />And the emails! Why did you need a private server? Why would you violate clear federal and White House rules on email storage, security, and transparency? Who deletes their email, scrubs their server, and ducks subpoenas?<br /><br />We love you, Hillary, but even we suspect there are foundation-related emails on that server. They may be embarrassing, but we'd like to think they're not nearly as politically damaging as stonewalling.<br /><br />Your CNN interview made us cringe: <i>"Everything I did was permitted."</i> No it wasn't, Hillary. You are either being misled by your team or you're lying. We can't bring ourselves to suspect the latter – and urge you again to hire more honest advisers.<br /><br /><i>"People should and do trust me."</i> No and no. You've told us yourself: Trust has to be earned, not assumed. And polls show that most Americans think you're dishonest. We've always trusted you, but we can understand why others don't. You've made some poor choices and, rather than fix them, you blamed the GOP and the media. You wouldn't let Chelsea say the dog ate her homework, so why do you think this is a good idea?<br /><br />We can't make it any plainer: You're the problem, Hillary.</blockquote>Poor Mr. Fournier. He would like for Hillary to be a much more honest and forthright candidate. He would like for her to win. And she keeps disappointing him.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br />You might enjoy <a href="http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz">this quiz</a> to see which 2016 political candidate most closely matches your views. Be sure to click the "Other stances" button for more nuanced positions. I also like that you can choose how important each issue is to you. I was struck at how few of the issues questioned were of any importance to me in the presidential contest. Anyway, I was surprised that I ended up matching Marco Rubio at 99%. That is whom I actually do prefer at this point, but some of that support is based on on my thoughts that he would have the best chance of beating Hillary. Amazingly, Rick Santorum and Scott Walker were tied for my next choices even though I don't agree with Santorum on most social issues and those issues are just not primary for me. I don't know if that says more about the programming of the quiz or about Santorum.Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-61970284351729954382015-07-01T09:24:00.000-04:002015-07-01T09:24:00.625-04:00Going on vacationI'll probably be unavailable for blogging over the next week as I'm going on vacation out to New Mexico. Have a wonderful 4th of July and I'll start up again when I return.Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-7127677240586905722015-06-30T07:27:00.000-04:002015-06-30T07:27:00.379-04:00Cruising the Web<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/27/us-usa-shooting-south-carolina-race-insi-idUSKBN0P70FA20150627">Reuters interviews African Americans </a>who regard the whole controversy over the Confederate flag a distraction. Ya think? And I'd go beyond the problems mentioned in the article about violence in their communities and racism from the police. There is a lot more to the economic problems so many blacks face and it has nothing to do with the Confederate flag.<br /><br />Ah, the Greecification of the United States <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/puerto-rico-says-it-cannot-pay-its-debt-setting-off-potential-crisis-in-the-us/2015/06/28/cbae1bc4-1e05-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html">draws ever closer.</a><blockquote>The governor of Puerto Rico has decided that the island cannot pay back more than $70 billion in debt, setting up an unprecedented financial crisis that could rock the municipal bond market and lead to higher borrowing costs for governments across the United States.<br /><br />Puerto Rico’s move could roil financial markets already dealing with the turmoil of the renewed debt crisis in Greece. It also raises questions about the once-staid municipal bond market, which states and cities count on to pay upfront costs for public improvements such as roads, parks and hospitals.<br /><br />For many years, those bonds were considered safe investments — but those assumptions have been shifting in recent years as a small but steady string of U.S. municipalities, including Detroit, as well as Stockton and Vallejo in California, have tumbled into bankruptcy.</blockquote>But sure, let localities, cities, states, and the federal government just keep piling on more and more unfunded spending. That'll work.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420449/print">Jim Geraghty looks</a> at Katherine Archuleta, the head of the Office of Personnel Management, and the results of appointing someone for the political and demographic boxes she can tick off rather than for her true competence for the job.<blockquote>Before becoming the head of OPM, Katherine Archuleta had no background in the kind of work the agency does. Archuleta, a lawyer and former Clinton administration official, was national political director for President Obama’s reelection campaign. She served as the chief of staff to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solís, and was the City of Denver’s lead planner for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Like the president, she has roots in “community organizing”: She co-founded the Latina Initiative, a Colorado organization aimed at getting more Hispanic voters involved in politics. (In 2011, the Latina Initiative suspended its operations, citing insufficient funding.) Nothing in this record suggests any expertise in the vitally important human resources and record-keeping functions OPM is supposed to serve.<br /><br />Before the hack, Archuleta’s primary goals at OPM appeared to be increasing the diversity of the federal workforce and implementing Obamacare’s changes to federal workers’ health-insurance options.<br /><br />Her July 2013 confirmation hearing was brief and relatively controversy-free. Senator Mark Udall, (D., Colo.), introduced her and declared, “she has an impressive range of accomplishments that make her completely, totally well-qualified to be director of OPM.”<br /><br />Archuleta mentioned her determination to “build on OPM’s health care experience” including “implementing its provisions of the Affordable Care Act.” She did say she would “prioritize the improvement of the agency’s Information Technology systems” and pledge to create the position of Chief Technology Officer, but that came in the context of a discussion on OPM’s difficulty in moving to a digital system for handling retirement services for federal workers. The topic of cyber security only came up during a brief discussion of whether OPM had sufficiently skilled personnel in that area....<br /><br />Upon her arrival in the post, she was touted by the Obama administration as “the first Latina Director” of OPM. The White House website declared, “Katherine shares President Obama’s vision for diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce” and added, “OPM has recognized and acknowledged the underrepresentation of Hispanics in the federal work force, and the potential and talent they have to offer.” Information technology and cyber-security were not mentioned.</blockquote>The blame doesn't fall all on her, of course. The Congress could have been more concerned with cybersecurity, not only in her confirmation hearing, but all along. But she clearly wasn't qualified to deal with the threats the agency was facing even when it became quite clear that cyber attacks were a problem.<blockquote>While Archuleta, the administration, and its allies were busy hailing a new era of diversity in the federal government, OPM’s apparently long-standing cybersecurity vulnerabilities remained unattended. <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/06/opm_hack_it_s_a_catastrophe_here_s_how_the_government_can_stop_the_next.html">Slate has noted</a> that OPM knew as early as 2013 that “sensitive data was not secured” and “security measures were not even tested to make sure they worked.” Worse yet, the agency “was unsure even of how to fix these problems,” and hadn’t fixed them as recently as this past April, years after the system had been repeatedly breached.<br /><br />When news broke of the first of those breaches, in early 2014, Archuleta went so far as to insist in public that there was nothing that needed fixing.<br /><br />In March 2014, OPM became aware of a partially successful Chinese hack into its systems. On July 9, 2014, the New York Times reported that “Chinese hackers in March broke into the computer networks of the United States government agency that houses the personal information of all federal employees, according to senior American officials, targeting the files on tens of thousands of employees who have applied for top-secret security clearances.” Officials quoted in the story said the hackers gained access to some of OPM’s databases before federal authorities detected the threat and blocked them.<br /><br />Archuleta was quick to downplay the breach, declaring in a July 21, 2014 interview with Washington’s ABC affiliate that, “We did not have a breach in security. There was no information that was lost. We were confident as we worked through this that we would be able to protect the data.”<br /><br />Even now, as the full extent of OPM’s security failures is slowly beginning to come into public focus, Archuleta has barely backed off that stance. She repeatedly told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee two weeks ago that she couldn’t say if any non-personnel information was lost in the 2014 hack.<br /><br />Her answers under oath in front of the Oversight Committee two weeks ago left Republicans and even some Democrats convinced she either knows exceptionally little about the state of her agency’s cyber-security or she’s comfortable lying about it, insisting that breaches aren’t really breaches and that obviously insecure systems are secure....<br /><br />“Since 2007, the OPM Inspector General has continuously pointed out serious deficiencies in OPM’s cybersecurity posture. OPM’s response has been glacial,” wrote Rhode Island Democrat Jim Langevin, a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security’s cyber-security subcommittee, in a statement calling on Archuleta to resign. “While I appreciate that Ms. Archuleta inherited a difficult situation, her first budget request continued to reflect the status quo even as the OIG’s warnings continued.”<br /><br />Langevin said cyber-threats can’t be solved, only managed, but admonished Archuleta for treating the difficulty of that task as an excuse for not developing “a risk-based cyber strategy.” He concluded, “I have seen no evidence Ms. Archuleta understands this central principle of cyber governance, and I am deeply concerned by her refusal to acknowledge her culpability in the breach.”</blockquote>If this is the incompetence demonstrated by the leader of one previously rather obscure agency, just imagine the vulnerabilities in other government agencies? But, hey, what's the problem as long as we can have a diverse workforce?<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />As Republicans head out to vote in the GOP primaries next year, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420435/donald-trump-voting-record-jillian-kay-melchior">they'll be doing something that Donald Trump hasn't done in over a decade.</a><blockquote>Records reviewed by National Review show that the mogul-turned-candidate never bothered to cast his vote in the past six presidential-primary elections — even in 2000, 2004, and 2012, years when he floated the idea of running for the Oval Office.<br /><br />Even as Trump filled candidates’ coffers, he skipped the 2002 general election, failing to cast a vote for U.S. representative and governor, among other positions. He’s also sat out several city and state elections in the past 15 years, while donating heavily to candidates in the same races. In some of these elections, it appears Trump’s ever-changing party registration rendered him ineligible to cast a primary ballot. But in many others, he could have voted but didn’t. </blockquote>I guess he has just figured out that money speaks louder than voting.<blockquote>Records reviewed by National Review show that the mogul-turned-candidate never bothered to cast his vote in the past six presidential-primary elections — even in 2000, 2004, and 2012, years when he floated the idea of running for the Oval Office.<br /><br />Even as Trump filled candidates’ coffers, he skipped the 2002 general election, failing to cast a vote for U.S. representative and governor, among other positions. He’s also sat out several city and state elections in the past 15 years, while donating heavily to candidates in the same races. In some of these elections, it appears Trump’s ever-changing party registration rendered him ineligible to cast a primary ballot. But in many others, he could have voted but didn’t. </blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/jeb-bush-dogged-by-decades-of-questions-about-business-deals/2015/06/28/0138223c-edb7-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html">The Washington Post has</a> a big piece on how Jeb Bush profited from his connections to having a father who was president in the years before he became governor including a very questionable deal involving a Nigerian water project. <blockquote>At first glance, Jeb Bush’s dual biography as a businessman-<br />politician can be hard to reconcile. Bush the politician presents the image of a man who is appealing, well-disciplined, intelligent and moderate. Bush the businessman has sometimes lent his name and credibility to money-making ventures that involved dubious characters.<br /><br />He and his friends have explained this seeming incongruity by saying that he has been the victim of people who took advantage of his good nature.</blockquote>Republicans might complain this is a hit job attempting to conflate Jeb's business background with the Clintons' sleazy deals. But, with all the possible candidates out there, it helps to have the media serve to thoroughly vet the candidates. Choosing Bush would immediately negate a line of negatives about Hillary - that she is the candidate of a dynasty from yesterday. Do we really want to surrender the high road when it comes to attacking the overall sleaziness of the Clinton rise to riches? That might be a risk worth taking for a top-flight candidate, but I'm just not convinced that Jeb is worth it.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/06/28/seven-conservative-mistakes/">Jennifer Rubin catalogs mistakes</a> from Republican leaders in response to the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage. I must agree that I regard it as a disqualifier for a candidate for the presidency to talk about defunding the Supreme Court or ignoring its rulings. I didn't think Bobby Jindal had any chance for the nomination, but<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-lets-just-get-rid-the-court"> his response </a>talking about getting rid of the Supreme Court greatly disappointed me. In response to a much worse decision, Abraham Lincoln didn't talk about getting rid of the Supreme Court after <i>Dred Scott.</i> And Rubin is right that Ted Cruz's hyperbole just makes him sound silly. No matter what one thinks about the decision, no Supreme Court decision ranks up with "some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history."<br /><br /><a href="http://nypost.com/2015/06/28/the-confederate-flag-and-hamilton-getting-the-nations-symbols-right/">Robert George has some wise word</a>s on symbolism with regards to the Confederate flag and downplaying Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill. <blockquote>Haley acknowledged that while the flag contained many positive connotations for the citizens of her state — regional pride, cultural heritage, familial connection — it was also inherently a divisive symbol. Many, after all, see it (fairly) as a banner of racism, slavery and terror.<br /><br />In short, it wasn’t something all residents of the Palmetto State could look to with reverence and unity.<br /><br />Frankly, that’s a wise view to take in considering objects that the government chooses to honor with an official imprimatur: Err on the side of those representing the polity’s common civic values.</blockquote>Frankly, I don't care a bit about the Confederate flag and think Republicans are making a mistake to get so upset about what was for so long part of the Democratic Party. I grew up in Illinois, but have lived over 30 years in the South and I don't think that the Civil War is the high point for the South. It is quite possible to celebrate one's Southern heritage without celebrating the part of Southern history that symbolizes for so many people slavery and Jim Crow. And those who say the War was not about slavery because so many of the soldiers were poor whites who didn't own slaves ignore the truth that the war wouldn't have been declared in the first place if the leaders of the South had not feared that the Republican Party's opposition to the spread of slavery to the new territories would limit slavery in an impermissible way. Without that fear, there would have been no secession and without secession there would have been no war. Wealthy Southern whites were able to convince non-slaveholding whites that the war was about resisting Northern aggression, but secession preceded everything. Lincoln would never have conceived of sending troops to the South if there had not been secession and seizure of federal property. I know that some of my readers greatly disagree with my thoughts on this, but I've studied that period very intensively and read a lot of the speeches, documents, and letters from the time. I agree with what <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Memoirs_of_Ulysses_S._Grant">Ulysses Grant wrote in his memoirs about the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox:</a><blockquote>I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us</blockquote><br />And Robert George that, while it is just a symbol, having Alexander Hamilton on the currency rightly celebrates a leader of our nation's history and he should not be downgraded just because it is on the schedule to revamp the $10 bill next and there is so much pressure from some quarters to put a woman on the currency.<blockquote>In other words, a bureaucrat opted to stick to a bureaucratic timetable, rather than looking at the larger picture.<br />And if ever a moment called for broader reflection, this is it.<br /><br />Every time someone uses American (printed) money, they look at history; they engage with a figure the government has sanctioned and, likely, celebrated.<br /><br />Save perhaps for George Washington himself, Alexander Hamilton is most responsible for much of the glue that binds this nation together — its financial system.<br /><br />It was his firm belief that a young nation that fought a war for independence together should pay off its debts together. In that view, he was initially opposed by Thomas Jefferson, who thought Virginia shouldn’t be burdened by the financial problems of less-wealthy states.<br /><br />Hamilton ended up winning the day and the Compromise of 1790 the two men forged (alas, the moving of the capital from New York to outside of Virginia was collateral damage) was one of the signature moments in the early days of the young United States.<br /><br />More important to today (and the post-Confederate flag discussion), Hamilton was an abolitionist, whose best friend attempted to raise a regiment of slaves to fight in the Revolutionary War, promising them freedom for their service (a moment recognized in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Hamilton” musical heading to Broadway next month).<br /><br />Meanwhile, the Treasury’s currency timetable means Jackson’s $20 bill — adorned with the face of one of the biggest slaveholders to ever enter the White House (who, unlike Washington, opted not to free his slaves upon his death) — will remain untouched for at least another five years.<br /><br />Jackson went from owning nine slaves when he purchased his Hermitage plantation to 150 at his death 40 years later.<br /><br />While not alone among early presidents in owning slaves, Jackson adds the forced relocation of Indians from tribal lands to his ledger. The so-called “Trail of Tears” has often been referred to as genocide.<br /><br />That this de facto founder of the modern Democratic Party was nicknamed the “people’s president” is one of the great ironies of history.<br /><br />Look, slavery is a part of our nation’s history. It’s not something that we can ever expunge from our memory — nor should we try.<br /><br />But we can — and should — take advantage of the moments when we’re already engaged in the discussion to consider which figures are worthy of remaining in the forefront of our national consciousness, and which ones can take, well, a back seat in the pantheon.</blockquote><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0465066976&asins=0465066976&linkId=UJ5S7J77HUR5GMPZ&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br />It's never enough, is it? Now<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/28/politics/bernie-sanders-obamacare-hillary-clinton-medicare/index.html"> Bernie Sanders wants</a> to go beyond Obamacare to a single-payer system. <blockquote>Bernie Sanders isn't satisfied with the Supreme Court's affirmation last week of President Barack Obama's health care law.<br /><br />Instead, the Democratic presidential hopeful said on Sunday he wants the United States to adopt a "Medicare-for-all" single-payer health care plan.</blockquote>I guess all his time in government has blinded him to how Medicare is bankrupting the country. Here is<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/23/trustees-medicare-will-go-broke-in-2016-if-you-exclude-obamacares-double-counting/"> Avik Roy of Forbes from three years ago.</a><blockquote>The Trustees of the Medicare program have released their annual report on the solvency of the program. They calculate that the program is “expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as last year’s estimate.” But what that headline obfuscates is that Obamacare’s tax increases and spending cuts are counted towards the program’s alleged “deficit-neutrality,” Medicare is to go bankrupt in 2016. And if you listen to Medicare’s own actuary, Richard Foster, the program’s bankruptcy could come even sooner than that.<br /><br />Here’s how the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services summarize the findings, which carry the formal title “2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds” :<blockquote>[Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund] expenditures have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so under current law in all future years. Trust Fund interest earnings and asset redemptions are required to cover the difference. HI assets are projected to cover annual deficits through 2023, with asset depletion in 2024. After asset depletion, if Congress were to take no further action, projected HI Trust Fund revenue would be adequate to cover 87 percent of estimated expenditures in 2024 and 67 percent of projected costs in 2050. In practice, Congress has never allowed a Medicare trust fund to exhaust its assets.<br /><br />The financial projections for Medicare reflect substantial cost savings resulting from the Affordable Care Act, but also show that further action is needed to address the program’s continuing cost growth.</blockquote>The Trustees, by saying that Medicare will go bankrupt in 2024, instead of 2016, are simultaneously saying that the program will increase the deficit by several hundred billion dollars. This is precisely the insight that Charles Blahous, one of the Medicare Trustees, explained in his recent report on the program.</blockquote>But Bernie Sanders would rather indulge in his Socialist fantasies than pay attention to fiscal realities. Maybe reporters can ask him about the increased spending he wants to pile onto the federal government in light of Puerto Rico's bankruptcy. But he probably wouldn't be able to see any connection.<br /><br />I guess the triumphalism of the left and the demoralization of the right regarding the Supreme Court<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/102789580"> was a mite bit premature.</a><blockquote>The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Obama administration failed to consider costs when deciding to regulate mercury pollution from power plants. <br /><br />In a 5-4 ruling, the court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs before deciding whether regulation is "appropriate and necessary." Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority decision. Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.</blockquote><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1599474891&asins=1599474891&linkId=WAM2XOXWULPOMIGR&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420387/print">Matthew Continetti analyzes </a>Hillary's chameleon-like qualities.<blockquote>What we have, on issue after issue, is a presidential frontrunner uninterested in leadership, who holds an ambivalent attitude toward notions of political courage and intellectual independence, who is devoted exclusively and mechanically to the capture of high office. She has latched on to the president’s ad hoc and failing Iraq policies because her party’s base supports them; gone from opposing same-sex marriage as recently as a few years ago to marching at the vanguard of America’s latest Cultural Revolution and saying that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed”; pledged to “go further” than Barack Obama’s constitutionally dubious executive amnesty despite being silent when her husband signed tough immigration bills in the ’90s, and despite having voted for an amendment that helped kill a pro-immigration bill in 2007; waffled on a trade agreement that she backed while secretary of state; and somehow avoided committing to an intelligible and consistent position on the Keystone Pipeline despite taking money from the anti-Keystone billionaire Tom Steyer. Is there any doubt that this supposed pro-Israel Democrat will back whatever nuclear agreement President Obama is able to reach with Iran, no matter how much he capitulates to the ayatollah’s demands?<br /><br />Hillary Clinton’s approach to politics is cynical, uninspiring, robotic. She’s a chef who follows the recipe without exception, who’s too afraid of failure to challenge the authority of either her superiors or her customers. She’ll be a president suitable for the age of intelligent machines. Like a Terminator she is fixated on her mission – though the Terminator has more personality, greater charm. There’s an assumption behind all her latest moves, a programming code that determines the automaton’s behavior: that the country’s demographics and culture have changed to such an extent that a winning campaign needn’t do more than identify and mobilize core supporters by assuming the various poses most likely to drive them to the polls. There’s the chance the code could be garbage.<br /><br />Clinton isn’t the first politician who’s inconsistent – far from it. What she and her husband have pioneered is a mode of inconsistency, an entire lifestyle of ideological flexibility the goal of which isn’t public-minded but wholly self-interested.</blockquote>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-78811343468505142572015-06-29T07:42:00.000-04:002015-06-29T07:42:00.075-04:00Cruising the Web<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/zombie-hillary_978257.html?nopager=1#">Jonathan Last imagines </a>how Bernie Sanders' success as a protest candidate will lead to Zombie Hillary, the undead candidate who just keeps attacking.<blockquote>And if there's one thing we've learned about Hillary Clinton over the years, it's that she never backs down.<br /><br />Not when the press went after her for Travelgate. Not when the House of Representatives was drafting articles of impeachment against her husband. Not when she was clearly losing the 2008 nomination. Not when she was being investigated for Whitewater, or Benghazi, or State Department emails, or ... well, you get the idea.<br /><br />Like a zombie, Hillary keeps coming. Relentlessly. Remorselessly. It doesn't matter how damaged she is or how ridiculous she looks in whatever position she's taken.<br /><br />So no, Bernie Sanders probably can't win enough delegates to deny Clinton the nomination. But by driving her to the left, alienating her from the Democrats' activist base, and showing that she can be beaten, he could turn her into a zombie candidate who takes for granted the 46 percent (or so) of the vote she has as a floor, but is never able to add to it.<br /><br />That's pretty attractive scenario for Republicans. Except, of course, that it might not come to pass. And that even if it does, sometimes the zombies win.</blockquote><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/25/how_polarization_weakened_confederate_flag_support_127116.html">Sean Trende had an interesting analysis</a> of how political polarization has served to weaken support for the Confederate flag.<blockquote>Because Democrats no longer see any electoral payoff in talking to guys with Confederate flags in the back of their pickup trucks, they no longer have any incentive to make even weak gestures toward keeping the flag around. Progressives are freed from their need to keep up their awkward dance with rural Southerners for the sake of maintaining some degree of power in the South (a dance that dates back at least to FDR’s reluctance to endorse anti-lynching laws). Polarization has forced them – and freed them – to explore new paths to power.<br /><br />At the same time, it’s important to realize that most prominent Southern Republican politicians have roots in either the suburban or old establishment Democrat wings of the party. I doubt if Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal grew up with much affection for the Confederate flag. The same goes for Mitch McConnell – who entered politics in Jefferson County (Louisville), an old Union town whose Republicanism was strong enough that it almost voted for Herbert Hoover in 1932. <br /><br />This isn’t true across the board – Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, who initially defended the flag, grew up in a rural small town in his state – but for the most part, I don’t think most Republicans in leadership positions ever had much use for the Confederate flag beyond political calculations. With rural whites now largely polarized into the Republican column, Southern Republicans no longer have to go hard after their votes. If anything, they need to watch their flanks in the suburbs and in the business wing of the party, and so it is now more natural for them to move against the flag.</blockquote>That's not something I'd thought about, but it makes a lot of sense.<br /><br />This is how far recycling mania has gotten. <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/recycling-enforcement/396734/">Trashmen are now employed </a>to go through people's garbage to see if residents need to be fined for not following recycling rules for their garbage.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=The+ObamaCare+Debate+Begins+Anew&oq=The+ObamaCare+Debate+Begins+Anew&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l2j69i61l2.4143j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8">Kimberley Strassel has some fun </a>with a new linguistic marker - interpreting statements under the John Roberts standard that words mean the exact opposite of what their clear meaning is.<blockquote>The one fun part of this week’s Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare is that it has given the country a new way to evaluate everything Democrats say. Take Barack Obama’s pronouncement Thursday that the court’s ruling in King v. Burwell means “the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”<br /><br />Those words are pretty clear. Mr. Obama surely meant them. Yet all we have to do is give them the old Roberts High Court treatment, and—voilà!—we discover the exact opposite meaning. Far from putting this debate behind us, the ruling has freed Washington to take it up. Now that the long months of waiting silently and expectantly for the court’s decision are over, debate on ObamaCare is about to explode in a way not witnessed since 2010.<br /><br />The reason rests in another of Mr. Obama’s statements Thursday: “there can be no doubt this law is working.” Apply those Roberts Rules of Plain Textual Interpretation, and we find that what the president <i>means </i>is that families are still losing their doctors, still getting hit with double-digit premium hikes. What he <i>means </i>is that the law remains as unpopular as ever.</blockquote><br />One big impact of Obamacare that people might not realize is <a href="http://www.nysun.com/national/big-damage-to-hiring-emerges-as-key-impact/89204/">the effect it has had on employment.</a><blockquote>The economics of Obamacare are very bad. The law is inflicting broad damage on job creation and new-business formation. It ruins job incentives by making it pay more not to work, thereby intensifying a labor shortage that is holding back growth and in turn lowering incomes and spending.<br /><br />Across-the-board Obamacare tax increases are inflicting heavy punishment on investment — right when the U.S. economy desperately needs more capital as a way of solving a steep productivity decline.<br /><br />Because of Obamacare, there’s an additional 0.9% Medicare tax on salaries and self-employment income, a 3.8% tax increase on capital gains and dividends, a cap on health-care flexible spending accounts, a higher threshold for itemized medical-expense deductions, and a stiff penalty on employer reimbursements for individual employee health-policy premiums.<br /><br />Each of these tax hikes is anti-growth and anti-job.<br /><br />There is so much talk about “secular stagnation,” inequality, and stagnant wages these days. But there’s little talk about the negative economic impact of Obamacare. It’s a much bigger story than SCOTUS jurisprudence.<br /><br />A couple of examples.<br /><br />First, there’s the problem of the 49ers and the 29ers. The business mandates and penalties imposed by Obamacare when small firms hire a 50th employee or ask for a 30-hour workweek are so high that firms are opting to hold employment to 49 and hours worked to 29. Lower employment and fewer hours worked are a double death knell for growth.<br /><br />The BLS sheds light on this: Although part-time work has fallen during the recovery, to 7 million from around 9 million, it hovered around 4 million during the prior recovery. Part-time employment, which as a share of total employment peaked at around 20% in 2010 and has slipped to about 19%, hovered around 17% during most of the prior expansion. Obamacare?<br /><br />Everybody is complaining about the low labor-force participation rate and the equally stubborn reduction in the employment-to-population rate. But why are we surprised? Obamacare is effectively paying people not to work.<br /><br />University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan argues that Obamacare disincentives will reduce full-time equivalent workers by about 4 million principally because it phases out health-insurance subsidies as worker income increases. In other words, Obamacare is a tax on full-time work. After-tax, people working part time yield more disposable income than working full time.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Once the Democratic celebration after winning King v. Burwell subsides, they might realize that they have complete ownership of the <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-obamacare-nightmare-just-beginning-13191">nightmare that the law has created of our nation's health care.</a><blockquote>The driving force behind health reform has been the desire to control rising health-care costs. From 2008 onwards, President Obama promised that his reform agenda would reduce the annual cost for the typical American family by no less than $2,500. After a while, it became a rather tiresome talking point. But it was pure nonsense from the start.<br /><br />Health-care spending increases were slowing down well before Congress enacted Obamacare. But with the onset of Obamacare, health-insurance premiums in the exchanges jumped by double digits, while deductibles increased dramatically. If you liked your doctor, you would be able to keep you doctor, the president insisted, but maybe not, in reality, depending upon whether or not your physician networks narrowed. Looking toward 2016, health insurers say premium costs will soar.<br /><br />In the days, weeks and months leading up to the King v. Burwell decision, commentators obsessed over the roughly 6.4 million persons who could lose health-insurance subsidies. With the Court’s ruling, they can keep the federal subsidies. But that doesn’t come close to ending the debate.<br /><br /><br />Roughly 6.4 million persons in thirty-four states could have been negatively affected if the Court struck down the federal exchange subsidies. But there is a much wider universe of persons adversely affected by the law: the roughly 15 million persons in the individual and small group market who don’t get—and won’t get—the federal government’s health-insurance subsidies. Under Obamacare, millions of Americans are forced to pay more for their government standardized coverage, regardless of whether they like it or not, whether they want it or not, or whether or not it forces them to pay for medical procedures that violate their ethical, moral or religious convictions. <br /><br />So, the debate will intensify over the primary issue: costs. In every state, the fundamental components of state health-care costs—the demographics, the underlying costs of care delivery and the competitiveness of the markets—are juiced up by expensive federal benefit mandates and individual and group insurance rules and regulations. These all drive costs skyward. As my Heritage colleagues have demonstrated, this regulatory regime forces young people to pay up to 44 percent more in premiums. Washington’s subsidies simply try to hide the true costs of the law; they don’t control them.<br /><br /><br />The law remains unworkable. The complicated insurance subsidy program itself has been a mess. H&R Block reported that about two thirds of subsidy recipients had to repay money back to the government because they got bigger than allowable subsidies. With the individual mandate, the administration has been granting lots of exemptions to insulate most of the uninsured from any penalty. That’s rather predictable; after all, even candidate Barack Obama argued that an individual mandate was unfair and unenforceable.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://link.nationalreview.com/view/551d55103b35d0c0438bc8c92ralk.6gvp/370251f5">Jim Geraghty explains</a> why political offices should not be "family heirlooms."<blockquote>Look, if you build the family business, you’re entitled to hand it down to your children. To contradict our president, “You built that. Somebody else didn’t make that happen.” If you do build something, you’ll have a lot of discretion about how you spend the money that comes in, and who takes over when you leave the scene. If you think junior’s got what it takes to run the place well, you go right ahead.<br /><br />But political offices aren’t supposed to be family heirlooms. Because they didn’t build that. They don’t own those offices; they occupy them -- at our discretion.<br /><br />Of course both parties have their dynasties and offspring gliding relatively easily into elected office. On the GOP side, there’s son-of-a-senator George H.W. Bush, and his offspring George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, and of course Jeb’s son, Texas land commissioner George P. Bush. Then there’s Liz Cheney, Ben Quayle, and Shelley Moore Capito (her father was governor of West Virginia),<br /><br />Last November, the election of an 18-year-old Republican state delegate in West Virginia was a brief sensation . . . of course, her election seems less stunning when you realize her father is a state senator and was a state delegate for many years.<br /><br />On the Democratic side, Hillary clearly climbed to the top with a lot of help from Bill; Almost every key race for Democrats in the red states in 2014 featured some offspring of a longtime political figure: Jimmy Carter’s grandson Jason Carter running for governor in Georgia, Florida congressional candidate Gwen Graham, Georgia Senate candidate Michelle Nunn, Senator Mark Begich (his father was Alaska’s congressman), Senator Mary Landrieu (her father was mayor of New Orleans), Arkansas senator Mark Pryor . . . then there’s New York governor Andrew Cuomo, California governor Jerry Brown (his father was governor), and the entire Kennedy clan . . . (You’ll recall quite a few folks contended Caroline Kennedy was a terrific choice for U.S. Ambassador to Japan because she had “good genes.” Suddenly there’s widespread belief that ambassadorial skill is contained in DNA strands.)</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-democrats-mythical-third-term-obstacle/">Joel K. Goldstein at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball refutes </a>the idea that it is just about impossible for one party to hold the White House for three terms even though George H.W. Bush was the only one to do so since 1952.<blockquote>In essence, the six “third term” elections the incumbent party lost since 1951 include one (1952) for a sixth term, one (2000) where it won the popular vote and narrowly lost the electoral vote, and three (1960, 1968, 1976) where it narrowly lost the popular vote and could have won the electoral vote with a shift of just a few votes. In these four elections, the incumbent party was hurt by its campaign behavior. So in the six races for a third term (excluding 1952), the incumbents won one decisively (1988), lost one decisively (2008), and lost four virtual dead heats marred by campaign problems, which generally included the failure to exploit or obtain cooperation from the incumbent president.<br /><br />Running for a third term surely imposes some disadvantage. Change is an alluring campaign slogan that allows the outs to promise something better without specifics. The incumbent party has a record to defend, and weak points can be hammered without considering whether the outcome of roads advocated by the other party but not taken would have been worse.<br /><br />The takeaway from campaign history since 1951 is not that an incumbent party faces long odds in winning a third term. It is rather that campaigns matter. It is hard to imagine McCain prevailing in 2008 given unhappiness with the war in Iraq and the economic collapse under George W. Bush. Yet Humphrey almost won despite Johnson’s disastrous Vietnam escalation, and Ford almost won notwithstanding Watergate and his then-unpopular decision to pardon Nixon, the mastermind of the cover-up. George H.W. Bush won, in part, because he ran a much better campaign than did his rival, Michael Dukakis, and he successfully enlisted Reagan to advance his cause. Had Nixon (1960) and Gore (2000) won, as they should have, and/or Humphrey and Ford, as they could have, no one would be claiming that presidential candidates from a party that has won two in a row are disadvantaged.</blockquote>That's an analysis that the Clinton campaign must like. Of course, that means that she would have to run an excellent campaign, something she has not demonstrated that ability to do. But the GOP should bet their future on her political weaknesses.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br />Oh, how lovely. <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/25/donald-trump-s-miss-usa-mess-the-presidential-candidate-s-racist-comments-provoke-mass-exodus.html"> A battle between Donald Trump and Univision.</a> They're offended by his idiotic remarks about Mexicans and are pulling out of televising Miss USA.<br /><br />Well, of course. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420401/trigger-warning-everday-feminism"> Using the phrase "trigger warning" is now a trigger.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/27/liberals_are_playing_a_racial_shell_game_127152.html">Jonah Goldberg marvels</a> of how liberals twist racial identities to suit their purposes. Elizabeth Warren can be a Native American simply if she wishes to define herself as one. But Bobby Jindal must be denied his Indian heritage since he believes in a Melting Pot-version of America.<blockquote>So: We live in a world where Bobby Jindal is a fake Indian, but it’s racist to say an older white woman[Warren] isn’t a real one (the correct term being “Native American,” of course). Nikki Haley is a villain for “suppressing” her Indian roots, but Senator Ted Cruz is a fraud for touting his Cuban roots. (Cruz was recently grilled by Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin about how authentically Cuban he really is. At least Halperin later apologized.)<br /><br />In<i> Barack Obama: The Story</i>, biographer David Maraniss recounts how Obama didn’t see himself as an American in college, mostly hanging out with Pakistani students as a fellow “outsider.” But as his political ambitions grew, he realized that had to change. His friend Beenu Mahmood told Maraniss that Obama was “the most deliberate person I ever met in terms of constructing his own identity.”<br /><br />In Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, he writes passionately about his conscious decision to identify as black, despite his mixed heritage, “to avoid being mistaken for a sellout.” Obama scrubbed any hint of white identity, eventually returning to the name “Barack” instead of “Barry.” One has to wonder: What if he’d made a different choice? Would the Washington Post and other outlets tout the line, “There isn’t a lot of black left in Barack Obama”?<br /><br />I very much doubt it, so long as Obama ran as a Democrat.</blockquote><br />This is one way to <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/06/28/city-fixes-failing-grades-for-high-school-students/">pretend that schools are improving.</a><blockquote>The failing scores of five students who took the Regents in January were switched to passing scores of 65 or higher on their transcripts, the city Department of Education has confirmed.<br /><br />One junior saw his scores upped to pass two exams required for graduation — Living Environment (biology) and algebra — even though he had failed both classes. The student insisted he deserved a break on the exams because “I studied my ass off.”<br /><br />In 2011, the state banned “scrubbing” — the practice of re-scoring tests that fall just short of passing. In 2013, the DOE tried to fire a teacher who raised the scores of five students on a Regents physics exam. In 2014, city scores plummeted after a new rule barred teachers from grading tests given at their own schools.<br /><br />Now, the city has sanctioned it.<br /><br />“This is Scrubbing Part 2,” a veteran educator said of the Automotive HS score changes. “The teachers used to do it. Now it’s the administrators.”<br /><br />Automotive HS is one of the city’s 94 low-performing “Renewal” schools — which Mayor de Blasio showered with $31 million this school year and has vowed to revamp with $163 million next school year. The state Education Department has branded Automotive and seven other city schools “out of time,” meaning the schools require significant revamping or a shutdown.<br /><br />While declaring Regents scores “final,” state officials last week said exams may be re-scored “if the superintendent of schools has compelling reason to believe that an essay was not scored in accordance with the rating guide or according to the required procedures.”</blockquote>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-32082153698998938082015-06-26T10:01:00.000-04:002015-06-26T10:01:52.378-04:00Cruising the WebWell, that was disappointing, but I hadn't really expected the Supreme Court to rule differently based on the questions asked at oral argument. It is very discouraging to have the principle that the bureaucracy and administration can determine what a law means even when they have to make up their interpretation. It's ironic that <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/25/silver-lining-scotus-just-spared-us-from-another-excruciating-episode-of-gop-failure-theater/">so many pundits</a> are saying that having the decision go the way it did on <i>King v. Burwell</i> is a political plus for the Republicans since they don't have to figure out a way to give people subsidies while still remaining committed to ending Obamacare.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />Yuval Levin explains <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420330/print">the really disheartening aspect of Justice Roberts' decision.</a><blockquote>He makes a much broader argument about the relationship between the vague, broadly stated aims and purposes of legislators and the role of judges interpreting the meaning of the particular laws those legislators then write. Roberts presses this point most firmly at the end of his decision, writing: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”<br /><br />In effect, this is a version of the president’s argument: Obamacare is not so much a particular law as an overarching desire “to improve health insurance markets” and so if at all possible it should be taken to mean whatever one believes would be involved in doing so. From the beginning of its implementation of this statute, that Obama administration has treated the words of the statute as far less relevant than the general aim of doing what it thinks would improve health insurance markets, and today the Supreme Court essentially endorsed this way of understanding the law and suggested it is how judges should think about laws more generally too.<br /><br />This understanding of the role of the judge threatens to undermine the rule of law in the American system of government, because it undermines the central place assigned to written law, and to the legislator, in that system. Ironically, I think the Chief Justice intends his decision to be deferential to the Congress—to keep the Court’s footprint small in this arena by not reading laws in ways that require large transformations in the forms of their administration. But in effect, this is more contempt than deference. While it would seem to suggest that the will of the legislator should guide the system, in fact it means that the word of the legislator does not govern the other branches. It implies that Congress should have just passed a law that said “health insurance markets shall be improved,” and then left it to the executive agencies to decide how they wish to do that while judges nod in approval.</blockquote>The danger in basing a decision on the perceived purpose of the legislators is that purpose can often be ambiguous or contradictory. <blockquote>. While it would seem to suggest that the will of the legislator should guide the system, in fact it means that the <i>word </i>of the legislator does not govern the other branches. It implies that Congress should have just passed a law that said “health insurance markets shall be improved,” and then left it to the executive agencies to decide how they wish to do that while judges nod in approval.<br /><br />But Congress is elected by the public, based in part on how its members explain their views to the public (including their views of how things like health insurance markets might be improved) and in part also on the public’s assessment of whether their attempted improvements in fact improve things. Members of Congress express their will through the particulars of the legislation they craft and enact, and when those particulars are flawed, contradictory, counterproductive, or misguided (and they are all of those things in this case) our system does not expect judges to provide the words of the statue with different meanings based on their own assessments of how the vague, broadly stated goals of the legislators might have been better achieved....<br /><br />The health-care debate, in the context of which this case might originally have been understood, will continue because what Justice Roberts insists is impossible is true: Obamacare is a law that was intended to improve insurance markets but was designed in a way that will actually harm them. We can only hope that debate will ultimately be resolved in a way that also pushes back against the unexpected implications of this case and this decision by reasserting the supremacy of the law. It has long been clear that Obamacare was digging a deep hole out of which conservatives would have to help the country to climb. But today’s decision has left it deeper than ever.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/25/white-house-reportedly-hid-extent-office-personnel-management-hack/">Deception and incompetence following disaster.</a> What a surprise for this administration.<blockquote>The Obama administration reportedly concealed the true amount of information compromised by a cyberattack on the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for several days after the initial disclosure of the hack, according to a published report. <br /><br />The <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Officials+Masked+Severity+Of+Hack">Wall Street Journal reported </a>Wednesday that the day after the White House admitted that hackers had breached personnel files, OPM publicly denied that the security clearance forms had been compromised despite receiving information to the contrary from the FBI. The administration did not say that security clearance forms had likely been accessed by the intruders until more than a week had passed.<br /><br />A OPM spokeswoman denied the claims, telling the Journal the agency had been "completely consistent" in its reporting of the data breach.<br /><br />The Journal, citing U.S. officials, reported that lengthy period between disclosures was the result of a decision taken by both White House and OPM officials to report the cyberattack as two separate breaches, one of the personnel files and one of the security clearance forms. That meant that rather than saying the hack may have compromised the information of approximately 18 million people, including some who have never worked for the government, OPM initially said that only about four million people were affected.<br /><br />By contrast, the paper reports, FBI officials who had to speak to lawmakers about the incident, including director James Comey, defined the theft as the result of one breach. </blockquote>Maybe it was all the result of a hateful video.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Don't pin your hopes on Bernie Sanders humiliating Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire just yet. It<a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/416929786/this-quirky-new-hampshire-law-might-keep-sanders-off-the-ballot">'s not clear legally </a>whether he can even have his name on the New Hampshire ballot for the Democratic primary because he is not a registered Democrat and has a proud history of saying he's not a Democrat. What are the chances that the Clinton campaign would not take advantage of the way the NH law is worded to try to keep Sanders off the ballot? If <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/25/anxiety-hillary-crony-claire-mccaskill-attacks-bernie-sanders-for-being-too-far-left-to-get-elected/">polls like this continue</a>, the Clintons might think that the bad press they'd get for going after Sanders would be worth avoiding a 1968-Democratic-primary-like result. A Clinton relying on legalistic wording to achieve a goal? Nyah. They'd never do something like that.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0062369288&asins=0062369288&linkId=DRHYM4QRYKF36VQC&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br />So it turns out that <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/357519.php">the sun is actually a thing.</a> Who knew?<blockquote>In a discovery scientists are calling "shocking," it turns out that solar output, that is, how much radiative heat the sun pumps out, is, get this, somewhat variable and changes over the years, and furthermore, changes in solar output may actually have effects in places as distant as -- well, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/23/weak-sun-could-offset-some-global-warming-europe-us-study">let's say the Earth, for example.</a><br /><br />And you're not going to believe this -- it also turns out the sun is currently experiencing a lower-than-normal output of radiative heating, <i>and that this has "offset" the expected global warming</i>, that is, <b>this is a pretty good excuse as to why there has been no damn global warming at all for 17 years.</b><br /><br />Now, while the scientists say that this <i>lower-than-usual </i>solar output may cause the current cooling, they do not, for reasons I can't quite guess at, postulate that perhaps <i>higher-than-usual </i>solar output was a major factor in the 1980-1998 warming cycle.<br /><br />Nope- only this lower-than-average cycle can change things.</blockquote><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1599474891&asins=1599474891&linkId=WAM2XOXWULPOMIGR&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br />It says a lot about how terrible the President's deal with Iran is that members of his own staff who were involved with the talks and policy<a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Iran+Diplomacy+Doubters"> are publicly condemning it.</a><blockquote>Doubts about President Obama’s Iran diplomacy are deepening, and some of the gravest misgivings are coming from his former top officials. That’s the import of a statement Wednesday from a bipartisan group under the auspices of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.<br /><br />In measured language, the statement offers a list of musts for a good nuclear deal. They include granting nuclear inspectors access to all Iranian sites, including military ones; lifting sanctions only after Iran meets its nuclear obligations; requiring Tehran to come clean on its past nuclear work; and limiting the number of advanced centrifuges Iran can test and deploy. From what we know so far, Iran has balked on all of these points.<br /><br />The signers include James Cartwright, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who became known as “Obama’s General.” Another is former CIA Director David Petraeus. Then there is Dennis Ross, Mr. Obama’s Iran czar in his first term; Gary Samore, previously Mr. Obama’s arms-control coordinator; James Jeffrey, formerly Mr. Obama’s ambassador in Baghdad; and Howard Berman, the last Democrat to chair the House Foreign Relations Committee. Some Republicans are also on the list, but a neoconservative cabal this is not.<br /><br />President Obama and his aides often dismiss opponents of his nuclear diplomacy as always preferring war over diplomacy. But the striking fact is how widespread the concerns are as the White House appears to make ever more concessions.</blockquote><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1621573702&asins=1621573702&linkId=YAMRGCBNABKNSVPZ&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://nypost.com/2015/06/25/why-liberal-racists-are-attacking-bobby-jindal/">Seth Mandel explains </a>why liberals are attacking Bobby Jindal for being insufficiently Indian. They can't bear for any member of a minority to resist hyphenization.<blockquote>Jindal’s argument is clear: Your ethnic or religious heritage doesn’t make you any less fully American. You don’t need a qualifier just because your parents or grandparents were born elsewhere. This is America, after all.<br />For the left, being “American” insufficiently describes you for the cultural commissars of modern identity politics.</blockquote>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-54287386644502006372015-06-25T07:47:00.000-04:002015-06-25T07:47:00.251-04:00Cruising the Web<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420268/print">George Will has some very good questions </a>for Hillary Clinton.<blockquote>Three times in your memoir<i> Hard Choices </i>you say that as secretary of state you visited 112 countries. Do you think “peripatetic” is a synonym for “effective”? <br /><br />....President George W. Bush said that when he looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes he saw a “very straightforward and trustworthy” man. You looked into Putin’s regime and saw an opportunity for a cooperative policy “reset.” Were you or Bush more mistaken?<br /><br />In March 2003, Bush launched a war of choice to accomplish regime change in Iraq, mistakenly believing it was developing weapons of mass destruction. In March 2011, Barack Obama and you launched a war of choice against Libya for the humanitarian purposes of preventing, it was said, as many as 10,000 deaths at the hands of Moammar Gaddafi. Since March 2011, in Syria, where the regime continues to use chemical weapons that it supposedly agreed to surrender, the civil war has killed more than 320,000. Why humanitarian intervention in Libya instead of Syria?<br /><br />....<i>Forbes </i>magazine says the combined net worth of America’s 536 billionaires is $2.566 trillion. Is it a grave problem that the 536 have 3 percent of America’s $84.9 trillion wealth? Is it deplorable that the Waltons became a family of billionaires by creating Wal-Mart, America’s largest private-sector employer? Do you regret that Apple products made Steve Jobs a billionaire? Are any of your however many phones iPhones?<br /><br />Sanders vows “to make tuition in public colleges and universities free.” Do you agree that the 68 percent of Americans without college degrees should pay the tuition for those whose degrees will bring them lifetime earnings significantly higher than the earnings of the non–college graduates who will have paid much of the cost of the “free” tuition?</blockquote><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420247/print">Amazon and eBay</a> are refusing now to sell items with the Confederate flag on them, but they are still selling items with Communist and Nazi symbols on them.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/from-piyush-to-bobby-how-does-jindal-feel-about-his-familys-past/2015/06/22/7d45a3da-18ec-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html">The Washington Post doesn't think that Bobby Jindal is Indian enough.</a> Isn't it nice that they can judge a Republican's ethnicity. <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bobby-jindal-indian-giver_977597.html">Noemie Emery reminds us</a> of this trend in the media when it comes to Republicans.<blockquote>For a conservative not born a white male in this country, this is pretty much par for the course. There wasn’t much black in Clarence Thomas, not much woman in Kay Bailey Hutchinson (according to proto-girl Gloria Steinem), and there won’t be much anything in any Republican black, female, Latino, or non-male, non-purely-Anglo aspirant who has any chance of winning elections, gaining a following, or making a dent in the various voting blocs the liberals think of as theirs.<br /><br />It brings to mind Mark Halperin’s embarrassing grilling of Ted Cruz a short time ago, in which he tried to discover, via his preferences in food, drink, and music, if Cruz was really a Cuban, and asked him to say something in his non-native tongue. But why is “enoughness” confined to such a small spectrum? It ought to be spread more around....<br /><br />No one flunked the Irish Catholic test more than John Kennedy, who liked seafood, not corned beef and cabbage, did not say “begorra,” and never got drunk. He never mentioned Parnell, but identified mainly with English aristocrats, the ancestral foes of his ethnic persuasion, especially with the young poet soldiers of the World War I generation.... Obviously, there was no Irish “left in him” by the time he was running for president. JFK, race traitor. Who would vote for this mountebank today?<br /><br />There’s a word for what happened to Jindal, to Cruz, and to Kennedy. It’s called “assimilation,” which was once a good thing. It is what happens when immigrants and their children lose some of the marks of their country of origin and become part of the overall national culture, which they also change by their presence in it. It’s what Theodore Roosevelt meant when he said people from everywhere are welcome here, as long as they shed their prior allegiance and really become of this country. He would approve of Cruz, Jindal, and Kennedy. We need more of his spirit today.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/">Ta-Nehisi Coates provides a very nice compilation </a>of primary documents to demonstrate how Southerners were quite clear at the outbreak of the Civil War that they were fighting to preserve their right to own slaves. It was only after the war was over that there was an effort to whitewash their motives for fighting and to say that they were fighting for their liberty against an overreaching federal government. I use some of these same documents and others when I teach this period in my American history classes. I give students the ordinances of secession that Southern states issued declaring why they were leaving the Union. They all talk about slavery. I show them Alexander H. Stephens' <a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/">"Cornerstone" speech </a>in which the vice president of the Confederacy stated what the true foundation of the Confederacy was.<blockquote>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. </blockquote>Southerners might want to pretend that the War was not fought over slavery, but that is not what Southerners were saying at the time. And that is what matters. I'm teaching in Raleigh, N.C., a city that is made up mostly of transplants from somewhere else. I'm always surprised when I ask my students if they've ever heard that the Civil War was not about slavery. They all have heard that and many say that that was what their middle school teachers taught them. It's truly sad that this myth is being taught young people today even in a city like Raleigh where so many residents come from Northern states.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/">Instapundit </a>links to <a href="https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/">Popehat's post</a> advising us how to recognize the media's calls for censorship. Watch out for references to "hate speech" or reminders that we can't cry fire in a crowded theater and that not all speech is protected. Read the rest of the post and gain an education into what the Supreme Court has actually ruled on freedom of speech.<br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0062369288&asins=0062369288&linkId=DRHYM4QRYKF36VQC&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420211/left-activist-peak-kevin-d-williamson">Kevin Williamson identifies</a> the leftist response to anything bad that happens.<blockquote>“Something bad has happened to somebody else, and so you must give us something we want!”</blockquote><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420244/e-pluribus-wuddint-me-kevin-d-williamson">Williamson </a>also notes this depressing trend of everyone rushing to disclaim responsibility whenever something goes wrong.<blockquote>Regarding the OPM hack, the agency’s boss–I’d call her an OPM hack, but that would be confusing–offers the new motto of the U.S. government: “I don’t believe anyone is personally responsible.” We need to translate that into Latin and carve it into the Capitol dome in four-foot-high letters.<br /><br />IRS criminals using the revenue agency as a political weapon? Nobody personally responsible. Former secretary of state violating a half-dozen laws and regulations with her secret email server? Nobody personally responsible. Federal agencies full of people who do nothing but watch porn all day? Nobody personally responsible. Diplomats massacred? Confidential records leaked to left-wing advocacy groups? Evidence-tampering? EPA paying out a half-million dollars in improper bonuses? Nobody personally responsible. </blockquote>Add in the scandal at VA hospitals and the fiasco with the Obamacare rollout as well as the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate.<br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1599474891&asins=1599474891&linkId=WAM2XOXWULPOMIGR&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420230/us-mandates-iss-embed-deeper-civilian-populations-jonah-goldberg">As Jonah Goldberg points out</a>, the new U.S. policy of not launching attacks on ISIS if they can guarantee zero civilian casualties will have the perverse incentive of driving ISIS deeper among civilians just as Hamas hides its forces among civilians.<br /><br />Depending on where you do most of your driving, an electric car might be <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-study-electric-cars-may-be-worse-for-the-environment-than-gas-powered/article/2566847">worse for the environment than a gasoline-powered car.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/here-we-go-leftists-want-military-bases-named-after-confederate-generals-renamed/">Jim Hoft reports</a> that, in the rush to remove all signs of the Confederacy from public spaces, <a href="http://www.stripes.com/military-life/military-history/poll-should-us-military-bases-named-after-confederates-be-renamed-1.353890">Stars and Stripes is polling to see</a> if people think that US military bases named after Confederate officers such as Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, or Fort Lee should be renamed. I've actually thought that for a long time. These men fought against the US government and I don't see why the US army should honor men who went to war fighting against the US army. <br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1621573702&asins=1621573702&linkId=YAMRGCBNABKNSVPZ&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/23/spike_it_when_the_media_kill_a_story_for_political_reasons_127088.html">Charles Lifson notes</a> how the MSM didn't report on the news about how closely Jonathan Gruber actually was to the White House in the crafting of the Affordable Care Act and the lobbying effort to get it passed. This flies in the face of what the administration said when videos of Gruber telling audiences that the bill passed thanks to the stupidity of the American people and that the very provision at the heart of King v. Burwell was designed to put pressure on state governments. So, it's clear that the administration lied to the public, but the media don't seem disturbed at being lied to.<blockquote>What happened on Morning Joe was fascinating. One of the hosts, Mika Brzezinski, called attention to the Journal story. Her co-host, former GOP Rep. Joe Scarborough, followed up. Turning to Mark Halperin, who is the co-managing editor of Bloomberg Politics and a former senior reporter at Time, Scarborough asked if the story was inconsistent with White House statements. “I owe my Republican sources an apology,” Halperin said, “because they kept telling me he [Gruber] was hugely involved, and the White House played it down.”<br /><br />Then Scarborough asked the money question: “Did the White House lie about that?”<br /><br />“I think they were not fully forthcoming.”<br /><br />That answer did not come from a White House official or a Democratic operative. It came from a big-time reporter. And not just any reporter. It came from a reporter to whom the White House had deliberately lied in background briefings. Does he call them out? Nope. He spins for them.<br /><br />Halperin’s circumlocution shows the rot that pervades America’s mainstream media. He cannot bring himself to say more than “they were not fully forthcoming.” Morning Joe’s panel of Democratic stalwarts, including Howard Dean, actually laughed out loud. When they were asked the same question—did the White House lie?—they kept laughing and said “they were not fully forthcoming.” I guess the joke’s on us.<br /><br />As lies go, it’s not a huge one. It’s not like saying, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance. Period.” That wasn’t just fraud; it was fraud that played an essential role in passing Obamacare. The president knew it was false when he said it, and he said it repeatedly.<br /><br />Still, the latest Gruber episode tells us something troubling and important. If the media share the White House’s political views, then journalists and editors will refuse to do their essential job: truthful reporting. They will spike the story. On the same spike, they impale what is left of their reputations. </blockquote>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-25895531154283220722015-06-24T10:44:00.000-04:002015-06-24T11:03:58.597-04:00Cruising the Web<a href="https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/06/23/media-bias-hillary-clinton/">Noah Rothman chastises </a>Philip Rucker and Anne Geraan of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/while-gop-candidates-stammer-clinton-directly-confronts-race/2015/06/22/6414dd66-18f8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html">the Washington Post for beatifying Hillary Clinton </a>for her response to the horrific massacre in Charleston while ignoring her own family's problematic past with the Confederate flag.<blockquote>At no point in this piece did the reporters note the Clintons, too, have a complex relationship with the Confederate flag. A Clinton-Gore button from 1992 graced with the Confederate battle flag has led many to wonder if Hillary Clinton’s husband’s campaign endorsed it. But the likely Democratic standard-bearer’s campaign has thus far refused to comment on that matter. How courageous.<br /><br />There are reasons to believe that Bill Clinton might have embraced this and other campaign buttons that cast him and his Tennessee-based running mate as sons of the South. As governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton signed a bill affirming that one of the stars on his state’s flag would stand in commemoration of the Confederate States of America. Even former Clinton advisor Paul Begala insisted that Hillary Clinton “absolutely” has to answer for standing by her husband’s decision on that matter all those years ago. The Post, however, seems unconcerned with Clinton’s silence on this issue, too.<br /><br />As narratives go, the Post’s reporters made a conscious effort to embrace one over another equally compelling version of the aftermath of the Charleston shootings. The reporters spent an inordinate amount of time, perhaps reluctantly, noting that Clinton was forced after lagging behind events to praise Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for having the real courage to defy her constituents and demand that the rebel flag be furled forever. Haley is, after all, a Southern Republican governor — a woman and a minority — taking down the flag that was erected first by one of her Democratic predecessors in 1962. Republicans purged the South of the scourge of slavery amid a bloody civil war; Republicans oversaw the dismantling of Jim Crow and the desegregation of the Deep South; and now Republicans, from South Carolina to Mississippi, are flouting some of their more recalcitrant voters and ridding the South of that symbol of rebellion once and for all. The last time Clinton called for the Confederate flag to be lowered in the South was, her campaign insists, 2007. Such bravery.<br /><br />This narrative didn’t seem to interest the Post’s neutral and dispassionate political reporters. Instead, what captured their imaginations was a speech Clinton gave to a room full of liberal supporters where she lamented persistent racial tensions and gun violence in America. What courage is there to be found in a liberal telling a room full of like-minded fellows what they already believe? It takes an empirical, objective political reporter to see it. For Rucker who was among the many reporters seen celebrating at the wedding of a Ready for Hillary staff member and her campaign’s director for grassroots engagement over the weekend, you would think he would display a bit more decorum. Apparently, modesty and an adversarial relationship with those on whom you are required to report is no longer a value that the nation’s journalistic class is prepared to uphold or enforce with much vigor. Unless, of course, that subject is a Republican.</blockquote>I remember how the Confederate flag was used to beat up on George W. Bush about not taking a strong stand against the flag in the South Carolina primary in 2000. Yet no one asked Al Gore about the statues commemorating Nathan Bedford Forrest in his home state of Tennessee. Forrest was a notorious slave-trader before the war, a vicious cavalry leader during the Civil War responsible for the massacre of surrendered black soldiers at Fort Pillow and a founding leader of the KKK. There's a <a href="http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/22/tn-democrat-time-to-remove-forrest-bust-from-tn-capitol/29120011/">bust of him in the Tennessee statehouse</a> and <a href="http://www.tennessean.com/story/insession/2015/06/22/blockage-sought-of-i-65-nathan-bedford-forrest-statue/29128551/">a big statue put up in 1998 that is visible from the highway on private land designed by one of the lawyers for James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King.</a> I was struck then about the double standard of making Bush somehow answerable for South Carolina's flag when he wasn't even from there, but no one seemed to think that Gore should take a stand on the tributes to Tennessee's notorious hometown figure. I also remember the media talking about Gore's dog at the time which was named Shiloh and I wondered if the dog was named to commemorate a Tennessee Civil War battle and why he would have chosen that name. For myself, I don't see why politicians of today should be forced to make symbolic protests against the choices of politicians of another era. But that is the sort of game that is played in racial politics these days. It's just rather notable that those aren't the sort of questions aimed at Democratic politicians when it was Democrats who enacted and celebrated those racist policies in the first place.<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br />Well, not all writers at the Washington Post are as ignorant of how the Clinton-Gore campaign portrayed themselves in the South during the 1992 campaign. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/22/what-those-clinton-gore-confederate-flag-buttons-say-about-politics-in-2015/">Philip Bump reminds us</a> of a couple campaign buttons for Clinton-Gore. One was superimposed on the Confederate flag and another depicted both men in rebel uniforms and called them "Sons of the New South." Bump questions whether either button were official buttons of the Clinton-Gore campaign. But it is true that they played on their image as Southerners to try and win Southern states without which no Democrat up until 2008 was able to win the presidency. Of course, those were the days when Clinton and Gore enjoyed portraying themselves as<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats"> New Democrats</a> and we know how that is no longer possible for any prominent Democratic politician.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Thin-Skinned+and+Upset%3F+Call+a+Lawyer">Ronald D. Rotunda writes in the WSJ a</a>bout a new movement by liberal legal forces to redefine what assault is.<blockquote>A group of judges, attorneys and law professors recently voted to make tapping the shoulder of a Muslim woman to ask for directions potentially punishable in a U.S. court of law. This group, the American Law Institute, is an elite private organization that includes the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, the chief judges of the U.S. Courts of Appeal and the highest state courts, most law school deans, some law professors and private attorneys.<br /><br />Here is the background. The American Law Institute periodically issues “restatements” that attempt to codify the common law—but also shift the law in the direction the institute wants it to go. In 1964, for example, the institute’s Restatement of Torts established the liability of sellers to consumers for defective products regardless of fault. At the time only 16 states had taken this position. Now it is the law everywhere.<br /><br />The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that American Law Institute restatements are law in all subsequent decisions when there is no state statute to the contrary. The U.S. Supreme Court on average cites the institute at least once a month.<br /><br />On May 20 the American Law Institute approved, by a very close vote, significant changes to the section of its new Restatement of Torts dealing with assault and battery. The changes will have far-reaching, and extremely troubling, social and legal ramifications—including favoring some religious beliefs over others.<br /><br />The institute’s restatement defines the tort of battery as any contact with another person that “offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity” or—the new addition—contact that is highly offensive to another person’s “unusually sensitive sense of personal dignity, and the actor knows that the contact will be highly offensive to the other.”<br /><br />To be a battery, the contact or touching must be offensive. That’s to exclude the occasional bumps we experience walking through a crowd. And the law always measured what constituted an offense based on the views of a reasonable person. That way a judge can dismiss a frivolous claim. However, the American Law Institute now proposes that personal contact is a tort if the defendant knows that it will be offensive to someone who is “unusually sensitive.”<br /><br />This is dangerous. To understand why, suppose a patient tells a hospital, “I don’t want any Jewish doctors or nurses to touch me.” An earlier draft of the institute’s restatement said, “if the patient had demanded that she not be touched by a nurse or doctor of a particular race or religion, the hospital and medical staff have no obligation to respect that preference” because it violates “public policy.” But the final accepted draft eliminates the words, “or religion.”<br /><br />So if a hospital does not obey a religious bigot’s demand, it risks a lawsuit, jury trial and punitive damages. And insurance does not often cover a battery. Thus if the trial takes place in a community with a significant Muslim population, the hospital will be more likely to settle—an outcome that will encourage religious bigotry.</blockquote>This is very scary stuff. But in this universe where the University of California is warning professors not to make statements about achievements being based on merit or that America is the land of opportunity, we live in a very topsy-turvy world.<br /><br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-hard-lessons/2015/06/21/56c07130-181b-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html">Chris Cillizza is not impressed</a> with President Obama's complaints that he just hasn't been able to accomplish what he would have liked to because...Washington. Obama said that he never told us "Yes, I can," but instead "Yes, we can." Well, not exactly. That's not what he was telling the gullible masses in 2008.<blockquote>The entirety of Obama’s candidacy was premised on the idea that choosing politicians with familiar backgrounds had gotten us into this mess and that the only way out of it was to choose someone, like him, with a decidedly nontraditional background.<br /><br />Implicit — and sometimes explicit — in Obama’s pitch to the American public was the idea that he was uniquely able to solve the unsolvable problems that had vexed Washington through Democratic and Republican presidents alike. (Remember that he ran hard against many of the principles that defined the presidency of Bill Clinton, a tactic that drove the former president nuts.)<br /><br />That unique ability was based in two ideas: 1. Obama’s background — he is the son of a white mother and an African father and was raised by his grandparents in Hawaii — had created a person who understood how to move between various groups, how to talk the talk and walk the walk of the various segments of society. 2. Obama’s entire life — particularly his relatively short time in office — was proof that he could unite un-unitable coalitions and, not for nothing, persuade people far outside of the Democratic base to support him. (He carried Indiana, for Pete’s sake!)</blockquote>Notice, that neither of these qualifications were based on his actual accomplishments or skills, just on the fact of his being who he was. But he didn't govern that way. Instead he insisted on doing things his way and taunted the Republicans by saying "I won." He didn't need to work with them to get the stimulus or his health care passed. He didn't need to compromise and gosh dang it - that's that way it should always be in his mind. Now he's disappointed and frustrated that he can't ram through everything he'd like to. Perhaps if he'd had a better grasp of American political history and the way our government works he wouldn't have been so arrogant in the first place and wouldn't be so disappointed in America now.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/kirsten-powers-an-antiabortion-antiwar-liberal-working-for-fox-news/2015/06/17/65231060-054d-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html">The Washington Post profiles Kirsten Powers</a> and her unique position as a pro-life, evangelical Christian who is also a liberal. Her experience occupying that ideological middle ground while also being a pundit on Fox News is the basis of her new book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/The-Silencing-Left-Killing-Speech/dp/1621573702/ref=as_sl_pc_tf_til?tag=mrsnewspagofh-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=YAMRGCBNABKNSVPZ&creativeASIN=1621573702 ">The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.</a><br /><blockquote>For Powers’s liberal friends, following her arguments can seem like tracing a winding river, marked by unexpected tributaries and confusing crosscurrents. She supports same-sex marriage but defends those who oppose marriage equality because of “a sincere belief often grounded in a Christian worldview.” She is a Christian herself, but she also chided small-business owners who, in the name of faith, balk at making wedding cakes or providing flowers for gay weddings. Jesus would bake the cake, she says. She opposes abortion rights but supported the Affordable Care Act. She would like immigrants who are in the country illegally to have amnesty. She opposed the Iraq war.<br /><br />Some liberal activists doubt her allegiance to progressive causes and call her a turncoat, while conservative commenters on her Facebook page love to tease her. One posted: “You’ve lost that liberal feelin’ . . . Whoa that liberal feelin’.”<br /><br />Powers describes the reaction to her commentary bluntly, the way she describes everything: “I’m perpetually confused. Just the fact that I’m on Fox News means that somehow I’m not a liberal? I can’t figure out if it’s just ignorance or if there’s something more nefarious about it. Wouldn’t you determine whether I’m a liberal based on what my views are?”</blockquote>She gets flack from both sides, but only one side seems disbelieving that someone like her can actually exist when she's probably more in alignment with many Americans than either those on the extremes of either ideology.<br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1621573702&asins=1621573702&linkId=YAMRGCBNABKNSVPZ&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br />Conservatives love to bash Mitch McConnell, but today <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=A+Senate+Majority+Leader+Worthy+of+the+Title">Bob Dole and Trent Lott pay tribute</a> to what McConnell has been able to accomplish in just six months as Majority Leader. The contrast to Harry Reid is remarkable.<blockquote>In only six months, the progress has been dramatic. Committees are up and running. Senators in both parties are debating and amending bills. Since January, the Senate has passed 30 bipartisan bills, a feat that required skillful leadership and real consensus-building. Not only is legislation now passing, bills are actually making their way to the president’s desk.<br /><br />The very first bill of the new Congress was a bipartisan proposal to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. In one week senators voted on more roll-call amendment votes to Keystone than they had voted on in all of last year, a welcome development that has been rightly cheered by Republicans and Democrats alike. After President Obama ultimately vetoed the bill, even an unsuccessful attempt to override the veto was bipartisan, with eight Democrats joining in.<br /><br />Following an important but frustrating debate over the president’s unilateral actions on immigration from last fall, and a skirmish over a human-trafficking bill that eventually passed unanimously, Mr. McConnell helped shepherd through the Senate’s first budget in years.<br /><br />Already, the Senate has resolved a thorny Medicare reimbursement issue that bedeviled both parties for years. The Senate also passed the Iran Nuclear Review Act, allowing crucial congressional oversight of any nuclear deal the administration strikes with Iran.<br /><br />This month the Senate turned to the annual appropriations bills six months earlier than in recent congresses. And the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) made it to the Senate floor after intense scrutiny from both parties in committee and an overwhelming bipartisan committee vote of approval that foreshadowed a robust debate on the floor.<br /><br />Indeed, the Senate considered more amendments on this year’s NDAA, passed with a significant bipartisan vote last week, than it had during debates over the same bill in the past two years.<br /><br />When the Senate almost assuredly gives the president final fast-track approval this week, it will be an important step toward the successful negotiation of free-trade agreements that will give a boost to U.S. economic growth while enhancing national security....<br /><br />There was never a lot that a Republican-led Senate would be able to agree on with President Obama, but Mr. McConnell has been wise to identify the handful of matters where agreement is possible, and he has been tenacious in ensuring that the legislation earned bipartisan support. He said his Senate would focus on results, and it has. That’s a sign of real progress—not only for the public but for our politics as well.</blockquote>And meanwhile, the President whines that he hasn't been able to accomplish those things that he wants to do and acts as if nothing has been accomplished by Congress since the Republicans took over the Senate. He would have done better to have learned from McConnell's example.<br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0062369288&asins=0062369288&linkId=DRHYM4QRYKF36VQC&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br />Awww. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-odd-couple-20150622-story.html#page=1">Nino and the Notorious RBG are still very good friends.</a><br /><br />Say <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-foods-faces-city-probe-overcharges-article-1.2268695">it ain't so, Whole Foods!</a><blockquote>Rip-off on aisle four.<br /><br />The city [New York city] has launched a probe of Whole Foods Markets after investigators nabbed the upscale food purveyor for routinely overcharging customers on groceries during dozens of inspections dating back to at least 2010, the Daily News has learned.<br /><br />The most recent spate of violations came during a sting operation the Department of Consumer Affairs conducted in the fall that specifically checked the accuracy of the weight marked on pre-packaged products.<br /><br />Inspectors weighed 80 different types of items at Whole Foods’ eight locations in the city that were open at the time. They found every label was inaccurate, with many overcharging consumers, agency spokeswoman Abby Lootens told The News....<br /><br />Whole Foods, according to the city, wasn’t the only bad apple. The sweep included 120 grocery stores citywide, and 77% were hit with one or more violations.<br /><br />But the notoriously pricy chain was the most egregious offender — leading DCA to open a full-blown investigation of its pricing practices last year, said Commissioner Julie Menin.<br /><br />"Our inspectors told me it was the worst case of overcharges that they've ever seen," Menin said.<br /><br />The overcharges ranged from 80 cents for a package of pecan panko to $14.84 for a container of coconut shrimp, Lootens said.</blockquote><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1599474891&asins=1599474891&linkId=WAM2XOXWULPOMIGR&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-55287655036372837702015-06-23T10:50:00.002-04:002015-06-23T11:02:41.812-04:00Cruising the WebPeter Schweizer, author of<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288/ref=as_sl_pc_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=mrsnewspagofh-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=DRHYM4QRYKF36VQC&creativeASIN=0062369288"> Clinton Cash</a>, is not at all <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/06/22/clinton-cash-author-demolishes-hillarys-self-defense/">impressed with Hillary Clinton's denial</a> that donations to her foundation played any role in the State Department, under her leadership, approving the transfer of 20% of US uraniam to Russia. She says that she had no involvement in the decision. Oh, come on.<blockquote>The transfer of 20 percent of US uranium — the stuff used to build nuclear weapons — to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s time and attention?<br /><br />Beyond being an admission of extreme executive negligence on an issue of utmost national security, Hillary’s statement strains credulity to the breaking point for at least three other reasons.<br /><br />First, nine investors who profited from the uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation, including Clinton Foundation mega-donor and Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra, who pledged $100 million.<br /><br />Since 2005, Giustra and Bill Clinton have frequently globetrotted together, and there’s even a Clinton Foundation initiative named the Clinton-Giustra initiative.<br />But Hillary expects Americans to believe she had no knowledge that a man who made a nine-figure donation to her foundation was deeply involved in the deal? Nor eight other mining executives, all of whom also donated to her foundation?<br /><br />Second, during her Sunday interview, Clinton was asked about the Kremlin-backed bank that paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech delivered in Moscow. Hillary’s response? She dodged the question completely and instead offered this blurry evasion.<br />“The timing doesn’t work,” said Clinton. “It happened in terms of the support for the foundation before I was secretary of state.”<br /><br />Hillary added that such “allegations” are being “made by people who are wielding the partisan ax.”<br /><br />The reason Hillary ignored addressing the $500,000 direct payment from the Kremlin-backed bank to her husband is because that payment occurred, as the Times confirms, “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One.”<br /><br />And as for her comment that the timing of the uranium investors’ donations “doesn’t work” as a damning revelation: In fact, the timing works perfectly.<br /><br />As “Clinton Cash” revealed and others have confirmed, Uranium One’s then-chief Ian Telfer made donations totaling $2.35 million that Hillary Clinton’s foundation kept hidden. Telfer’s donations occurred as Hillary’s State Department was considering the Uranium One deal.<br /><br />Third, Clinton correctly notes in the interview that “there were nine government agencies who had to sign off on that deal.” What she leaves out, of course, is that her State Department was one of them, and the only agency whose chief received $145 million in donations from shareholders in the deal.<br /><br />Does she honestly expect Americans to believe she was simply unaware that the deal was even under consideration in her own State Department?<br /><br />Moreover, is that really the leadership statement she wants front and center heading into a presidential campaign? That in the critical moment of global leadership, with the Russians poised to seize 20 percent of US uranium, she was simply out to lunch?</blockquote>So the three a.m. phone call came from within her own house and she didn't answer it. No on can believe that. Expect to see more of this story in GOP ads in the general election. Schweizer says that the RNC is already testing the potency of the issue and finds it extremely powerful. Just imagine the line in an ad - Hillary approved sending 20% of our uranium to Putin's Russia while her foundation and husband were pocketing big bucks from the investors in the company involved in the deal. I think that the impact of such an ad could have a similar impact as the Willie Horton ad. Her actions just don't pass the smell test and Americans won't be happy to hear about her State Department sending our uranium to Russia. And her defense that she didn't know about it isn't going to make her sound like the leader who will be "fighting" for us. Remember her defense against beefing up security at the Benghazi consulate was that she wasn't aware of complaints that Ambassador Stevens had sent. <br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0062369288&asins=0062369288&linkId=DRHYM4QRYKF36VQC&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br />Students are doing more writing on tests due to the Common Core. That's fine in principle. I'm all about students learning how to write better. But the problem lies in how it is graded. And it extremely difficult to grade essays on a mass basis and do it quickly and fairly. I know how long it takes me to grade the essays that my students write. Of course, the most time consuming element is writing comments and suggestions on how students can improve. But even without writing comments, I would estimate that it takes me several minutes to grade a page and a half essay. I am mentally exhausted after I've graded one class's set of essays. I can't imagine doing it hour after hour and maintaining focus. But that is what the graders for Common Core exams are doing.<a href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/us/grading-the-common-core-no-teaching-experience-required.html?referrer&_r=0"> The NYT reports</a> on how the testing company Pearson is grading essays from elementary school students. The graders are not even teachers.<blockquote>There was a onetime wedding planner, a retired medical technologist and a former Pearson saleswoman with a master’s degree in marital counseling. To get the job, like other scorers nationwide, they needed a four-year college degree with relevant coursework, but no teaching experience. They earned $12 to $14 an hour, with the possibility of small bonuses if they hit daily quality and volume targets.</blockquote>The SAT has stopped using a writing section on the test after it tried about a decade ago to include writing and score the test for 2400 instead of 1600 points. But that turned out to be a big failure. It was a joke among students. They knew what the formula was for acing the writing section. <a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college-advice/sat-essay">Using big words was one of the recommendations.</a> I heard kids talking about the list of big words they had ready to drop into an essay just to sound impressive. Everyone also knew that the longer the essay, the better the grade. It was much easier for graders to assess quantity rather than quantity. It takes time to discern the student's argument and then go through the essay and see if he or she supported that argument with well-reasoned evidence. So don't be surprised at<br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/061915-758213-obamacare-repeal-would-add-886-billion-to-economy.htm">IBD teases out</a> what the CBO report on what would happen if Obamacare were repaired tells us about the impact of Obamacare on the nation's economy.<blockquote>But what the CBO's latest analysis does is provide three more reasons ObamaCare is a bad deal for the American public.<br /><br />• It's bad for the economy. President Obama sold ObamaCare as a major boost to the economy. But the CBO says ObamaCare is hurting the economy and that its repeal would boost the nation's GDP by 0.7% from 2021 to 2025. Based on the CBO's own GDP forecasts, that translates into $886 billion. When you account for these economic effects, ObamaCare's impact on the deficit shrinks to just $137 billion.<br /><br />• It relies on phony accounting. The only way the CBO can claim that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit by any amount is by assuming — as it must — that the roughly $800 billion in Medicare provider cuts all take effect. But that's a fantasy. The Medicare Board of Trustees says these payment cuts aren't realistic over the long term. And Obama just signed a law repealing Congress' last attempt to impose deep cuts to doctors.<br /><br />• Past forecasts have been wildly wrong. Back in 2011, the CBO said ObamaCare would cut the 2016-21 deficit a total of $109 billion. Now it says it will boost deficits by $109 billion over those same years, once you factor in the harm ObamaCare will do to the economy.<br /><br />To its credit, the CBO admits its latest forecast should be taken with heaping grains of salt. "All of the resulting estimates," it notes right upfront, "are subject to substantial uncertainty."<br /><br />Yes, the CBO says that repealing ObamaCare would increase the number of uninsured. But as we've pointed out here many times, there are other, far better ways to boost insurance coverage that won't balloon deficits, wreck Medicare and destroy the economy.<br /><br />Getting rid of ObamaCare is just the first step.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420084/print">Kevin Williamson resumes his explanation </a>of why Donald Trump is no statesman. <blockquote>Whatever Trump’s appeal is to the Right’s populist elements, it isn’t policy. He is a tax-happy crony capitalist who is hostile to free trade but very enthusiastic about using state violence to homejack private citizens — he backed the Kelo decision “100 percent” and has tried to use eminent domain in the service of his own empire of vulgarity — and generally has about as much command of the issues as the average sophomore at a not especially good college, which is what he was (sorry, Fordham) until his family connections got him into Penn.<br /><br />If it’s not the issues, it’s certainly not the record of the man himself. Never mind that he’s a crony capitalist, he’s not even an especially good crony capitalist: The casino racket is protected from competition by a strict cartel-oriented licensing regime, but Trump, being the type of businessman who could bankrupt a mint, managed to be the biggest loser in Atlantic City, which is no small feat. He is a lifelong supporter of Democratic politicians, including Chuck Schumer and, awkwardly, the woman against whom he is pretending to run: Hillary Rodham Clinton. He is dishonest (“Oh, he lies a great deal,” said architect and collaborator Philip Johnson) and has shown himself to be a bad bet for bankers, business partners, and wives, among others.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Former <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/ben-bernanke/posts/2015/06/22-jack-lew-ten-dollar-bill?cid=00900015020149101US0001-0622">Fed chief, Ben Bernanke,</a> is appalled at Jack Lew's decision to feature a woman on the $10 bill in place of Alexander Hamilton.<blockquote>Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, would qualify as among the greatest of our founders for his contributions to achieving American independence and creating the Constitution alone. In addition to those accomplishments, however, Hamilton was without doubt the best and most foresighted economic policymaker in U.S. history. As detailed in Ron Chernow's excellent biography, as Treasury Secretary Hamilton put in place the institutional basis for the modern U.S. economy. Critically, he helped put U.S. government finances on a sound footing, consolidating the debts of the states and setting up a strong federal fiscal system. The importance of Hamilton's achievement can be judged by the problems that the combination of uncoordinated national fiscal policies and a single currency has caused the Eurozone in recent years. Reflecting on those parallels, as Fed chairman I recommended Chernow's biography to Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank. Mario told me that he read it with great interest.<br /><br />Hamilton also played a leading role in creating U.S. monetary and financial institutions. He founded the nation's first major bank, the Bank of New York; and, as Chernow points out, Hamilton's 1791 Report on the Mint set the basis for U.S. currency arrangements, which makes his demotion from the ten dollar bill all the more ironic. Importantly, over the objections of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Hamilton also oversaw the chartering in 1791 of the First Bank of the United States, which was to serve as a central bank and would be a precursor of the Federal Reserve System.</blockquote>Bernanke acknowledges that it is hard for government to reverse a decision once made. I hope that Lew will pay attention to the criticism his decision has made and change it.<blockquote>I was in government long enough to know that decisions like this have considerable bureaucratic inertia and are accordingly hard to reverse. But the Treasury Department should do everything within its power to defend the honor of Jack Lew's most illustrious predecessor.</blockquote>I have no confidence of anyone in this administration acknowledging that they made a mistake in a policy decision and reversing it. Have they ever done that?<br /><br />Even <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4-_9hdO6K0&feature=youtu.be&t=2m40s">John Oliver is amused at the proposal</a> to add a woman to the $10 along with Alexander Hamilton.<blockquote><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w4-_9hdO6K0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></blockquote><br /><a href="http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/megyn-kelly-fox-news-star-anchor-republicans-hillary-clinton-1201524340/">Variety looks</a> at what makes Megyn Kelly so successful. They seem amazed that she's fair and just as tough on conservatives as she is on liberals.<br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br />It's 10 years after the infamous eminent domain case, <i>Kelo v. City of New London </i>was decided. And <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/23/dreams-demolished-10-years-after-the-government-took-their-homes-all-thats-left-is-an-empty-field/">this is what has happened</a> with the land that the government took from families since then.<blockquote>But the land where their homes once stood remains vacant, now a decade later.<br /><br />The city spent $78 million bulldozing the homes and preparing the area for development, but so far, all plans have fallen through.<br /><br />“They put in infrastructure and roads to nowhere, sidewalks to nowhere with always the thought that they were going to have this redevelopment plan where a hotel would come, a health club, cafes, restaurants and stuff like that that never came to be,” Kelo told The Daily Signal.<br /><br />And for Kelo and Michael Cristofaro—who grew up in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood and whose father was one of the plaintiffs in the case—the wounds from their battle with New London haven’t yet healed.<br /><br />“If you look out, this is what the city of New London wanted,” Cristofaro told The Daily Signal, standing in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. “This is what they took our homes for—this vast amount of land. This is what the U.S. Supreme Court said that the city of New London was justified in taking our homes—an empty field. As far as I’m concerned, it’s an empty dream.”</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=fdkitdining&banner=0AVCRTVRDYRNK3VXZSG2&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=SJOU7YUNJI5ZHMNI" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/22/supreme_court_bingo_how_it_might_rule.html">Sean Trende has an interesting analysis</a> of which justices have not written as many majority opinions yet this term to try to figure out which justice will be writing the opinions on the remaining cases. I remember such analysis back in 2008 while waiting for the decision in D.C. v. Heller, the gun rights case. Court observers concluded that Scalia was the one justice left to write an opinion and predicted that he would be writing that decision. And so it happened. So Trende's analysis is quite intriguing. Here are his predictions. We can refer back to this and keep score.<blockquote>To summarize, there are only a handful of people who really know how these cases are going to turn out. But, given the evidence, the best tentative conclusions are probably as follows:<br /><br />The FHA case: Almost certainly an opinion authored by Kennedy, probably finding the FHA does not allow for a disparate impact claim.<br /><br />The Arizona redistricting case: Most likely Roberts or Kennedy, probably striking down the commission. The chances that Ginsburg writes this opinion, however, are not insubstantial.<br /><br />The Obamacare subsidies case: Either Roberts or Kennedy. This is a “pick ’em” on the outcome. If they do find for the government, expect federalism concerns to play a large role.<br /><br />The EPA case: Scalia seems like the most likely author, which would almost certainly be a setback for the EPA. Kennedy could be writing this, however, especially if Ginsburg writes the Arizona redistricting case.<br /><br />The ACCA case: This is probably Ginsburg, unless she has the Arizona redistricting case. If she does not write this opinion, anyone other than Breyer (or Scalia, if he does author the EPA case) is a likely candidate.<br /><br />The Oklahoma death penalty case: This seems likely to go to a conservative justice. Under our rubric, Alito and Thomas are the only conservative justices who don’t have an opinion for this sitting (and who haven’t written eight opinions). But again, oral argument isn’t always clearly indicative of how things turn out, and we might be incorrect in our assumptions about how things play out in the other cases.<br /><br />Marriage equality: This opinion will probably be authored by Kennedy. The real question is just how far he is willing to go.</blockquote>Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-9520157927576011152015-06-22T07:13:00.000-04:002015-06-22T08:27:18.012-04:00Cruising the Web<a href="http://nypost.com/2015/06/21/democrats-march-further-left-then-claim-the-rest-of-nation-is-right-wing/">Kyle Smith examines</a> how the Democrats have moved to the far left and now are criticizing anyone who is not as leftist as they are.<blockquote>Obama supports a federal minimum wage of $10.10 an hour. Hillary Clinton has moved far to the left of that, seemingly endorsing a $15-an-hour wage floor in a call to fast-food workers this month. On free trade, which is backed by Obama, was a core policy of her husband’s administration and which she herself has supported many times in the past, Clinton is suddenly silent.<br /><br />In order to lock down Latino support, Clinton has staked out a position to the left of Obama’s extreme position on immigration, and less than 48 hours after arsonists in Baltimore burned down an innocent CVS store, she said “it is time to end the era of mass incarceration,” marking herself as perhaps the first president ever to run overtly as a friend of the criminal class.<br /><br />The media often remind us that Democrats and Republicans used to forge bipartisan policy solutions, scolding Republicans for supposedly moving right.<br /><br />But if the center is becoming a lonely place in American politics, Democrats are walking away from it much more rapidly than Republicans are.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/06/17/iowa-republicans-fret-primary-power-loss/Sz0sgqTRE0Smg7RFjWNtUI/story.html">Iowa and New Hampshire politicos are all worried </a>that their electoral contests are going to diminish in importance. One fear is that Fox News' debate will serve the purpose of winnowing down the mass of candidates for the Republican nomination when Iowans and New Hampshirites think that that is their job. Throw in the money from Super PACs and it might be possible now for a candidate to do badly in those two early states but still be able to hang around. I know that those two states think that they were chosen by Providence to be the lead-off states in nomination fights every four years, but they're the only ones that think that. <br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-trade-winds-blow-ill-for-hillary.html?ref=opinion&_r=0">Maureen Dowd is so fed up with Hillary Clinton</a> that she has dropped the snark and goes for a straight forward condemnation.<blockquote>As secretary of state, she helped Obama push the Trans-Pacific Partnership that is at the center of the current trade fight. In Australia in 2012, she was effusive, saying that the trade pact “sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.”<br /><br />Now Hillary says she is unsure about the pact and would likely oppose giving President Obama the special authority to negotiate trade deals for an up-or-down vote in Congress. As a future president, of course, she would want the same authority to negotiate trade deals that Obama is seeking in the messy Capitol Hill donnybrook.<br /><br />But as a candidate pressured by progressives like Warren and Bernie Sanders and by labor unions, she turned to Jell-O, shimmying around an issue she had once owned and offering an unpleasant reminder of why “Clintonian” became a synonym for skirting the truth.<br /><br />It depends on what your definition of trade is — and trade-off.</blockquote>Usually, when Dowd attacks a Democrat, she leavens the criticism with some side swipes at Republicans. But, apparently, Dowd is so disgusted with Hillary that she doesn't even need to bring in a <i>non sequitur</i> blasting Bush or Cheney. <br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=mostwishforitem&banner=0J7787TC6F91PCMX3882&f=ifr&linkID=X3PXT5UQUUZKSXLP" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br />Some of the Dick Cheney papers have been released by the National Archives in response to a FOIA request. The NYT reports on this release under the headline, "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/us/politics/in-first-batch-of-dick-cheney-papers-to-be-released-a-peek-at-a-polarizing-figure.html?">In First Batch of Released Cheney Papers, a Peek at a Polarizing Figure."</a> So I read the article expecting to see evidence of Cheney as a "polarizing figure." But they must really be a nothingburger since the NYT can't find anything to justify their headline. All there seems to be in this batch is a series of memos and articles sent to him aides about various stories. Cheney is clever enough not to have written anything on all of these documents sent to him. So the NYT is left to just imagine what his reaction might have been. <blockquote>In February 2008, an aide sent a news article to Vice President Dick Cheney reporting that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell might vote for a Democrat for president. Sections were highlighted in yellow, and someone had circled a quotation from Mr. Powell in which he said America had lost “a lot” of prestige around the world.<br /><br />Mr. Cheney recorded no reaction, but one can imagine some consternation at what the vice president presumably deemed disloyalty to the administration that both of them had served. Mr. Powell had been the vice president’s chief internal adversary during President George W. Bush’s first term and had grown disaffected. An aide clearly understood that Mr. Cheney would want to know the latest.</blockquote>So the documents don't demonstrate that Cheney was polarizing or much of anything, but, hey, Cheney is always worth a slam from the NYT even if they don't have much of anything to report.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=mrsnewspagofh-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=topratedproducts&banner=07RAS6ASA4P1TSE0B602&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=6IMUDPKMCNESSBAY" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/420020/print">Jay Nordlinger examines</a> what he calls the "even-steven" approach to countries and history.<blockquote>What Obama is (among other things) is a perfect representative of the even-steven syndrome. I wrote about this syndrome in an essay for National Review a couple of months ago: <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nordlinger_moral-equivalence05-04-15.html">here</a>.<br /><br />Everything has to be even-steven: I’m okay, you’re okay. I’m not okay, you’re not okay. Some Third World dictatorship is bad? Well, we’re bad too (or have been). The Nazis were evil? Well, what about our bombing of Dresden? And our atomic bombing of Japan?</blockquote>What leads Nordlinger to talk about Obama and the "even-steven" temptation was Obama's response to Jeffrey Goldberg's question about the anti-Semitism of Iran's government.<blockquote>More recently, he was talking to his go-to interviewer, at least on matters Middle Eastern: Jeffrey Goldberg, of The Atlantic. Goldberg asked him about the pending nuclear deal with Iran, in light of the insane anti-Semitism of that regime.<br /><br />“Well,” said Obama, “the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival.” That’s true, as far as it goes.<br /><br />Obama went on to say that “there were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country” — i.e., America.<br /><br /><i>Deep </i>strains? By the historical and global standards of anti-Semitism, those strains were mercifully shallow. You had to build your own country club, instead of getting into the established one, and they had a quota on you at Yale.<br /><br />The Iranian mullahs could tell you about varsity anti-Semitism, as opposed to the JV kind. Our president often seems to be on a high horse of his own — a horse that has been inhaling the fumes of the Choom Gang.</blockquote>But, hey, why criticize Iran if we are not perfect ourselves. Don't worry about the differences in the imperfections between anti-Semitism in America and that in Iran.<br /><br />And <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_TERRORISM_REPORT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-06-19-15-58-12">doesn't this sound l</a>ike a country that we should be looking to as a partner in peace?<blockquote>ran's support for international terrorist groups remained undiminished last year and even expanded in some respects, the Obama administration said Friday, less than two weeks before the deadline for completing a nuclear deal that could provide Tehran with billions of dollars in relief from economic sanctions.</blockquote><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> amzn_assoc_ad_type = "contextual"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_linkid = "XQJHPTJJIFBBHS5C"; amzn_assoc_emphasize_categories = "1000, 13900861, 130, 172282, 979455011, 1055398, 133140011, 1064954, 229534, 165793011"; amzn_assoc_fallback_products = ""; amzn_assoc_width = "300"; amzn_assoc_height = "250"; </script><br /><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US&source=ac"></script><br /><br />Is Hillary playing the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-is-playing-the-woman-card-too-early/">"woman card" too early?</a><blockquote>So is it smart for Hillary Clinton to play the “women card” this early in the race? She is already talking about the symbolism of her candidacy as a reason why we should support her. As she said in an interview with the Des Moines Register in Iowa on Sunday, “I expect to be judged on my merits, and the historic nature of my candidacy is one of the merits that I hope people take into account.” Well, her campaign can’t be pitched as a third Obama term and her own post-government private sector money hunt erodes her credibility in championing solutions to income inequality. Her record as Secretary of State doesn’t exactly shine. She doesn’t appear to feel particularly strongly about any particular issue. “Fighting for the middle class” isn’t exactly a fresh, bold appeal. Anyway, the operative class is beginning to murmur, and a lot of the pundits cannot seem to discern what her real, ultimate campaign strategy is. Is her strategy just to hunker down, stick to a narrow script and play the “woman card”?<br /><br />In the absence of anything else to say, Hillary Clinton has felt compelled to remind everybody that she is a woman and offer that fact as a key reason why one should vote for her. And perhaps relying on gender and the historic nature of the first female president would be a viable — if risky — plan for a frontrunner during the last ten days of a campaign, but sustaining this for a full eighteen months before election day will become untenable. She needs to build and maintain appeal for a long stretch ahead, and an overt reliance on her gender will not do the trick. </blockquote>But what can she do if that isn't all she's got?<br /><br /><a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/18/the-media-doesnt-want-americans-to-know-anything-about-king-v-burwell/">John Daniel Davidson </a>demonstrates how poll questions on <i>King v. Burwell </i>are written to achieve slanted results. <blockquote>According to a new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 7 in 10 Americans have heard little or nothing about King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court case that will, any day now, decide the fate of Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies for millions of Americans. Yet 63 percent of those surveyed also say that if the court rules against the government, Congress should act to keep those subsidies in place.<br /><br />Got that? The vast majority of Americans know almost nothing about this case, but 63 percent have an opinion about what Congress should do in response to a ruling that carries certain policy implications. How can this be?</blockquote>I am very suspicious of any poll questions about some topic that it is obvious Americans know very little about. Such results are useless except for pushing a certain agenda. That is all they're good for. Hmm I wonder if Kaiser has an agenda when it comes to health care?<br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0062369288&asins=0062369288&linkId=DRHYM4QRYKF36VQC&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br />While the media is all excited about the two killers who escaped from the New York prison and haven't yet be found, <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8e2301d3a7b04ff6b1f6f9e8a5a1a34a/across-us-over-130-prison-escapees-loose">here's a scary statistic.</a><blockquote>Somewhere out there are an admitted killer who crawled through a Texas prison's ventilation ducts, a murderer who apparently escaped from an Indiana institution in a garbage truck, and a Florida convict who got other inmates to put him in a crate at the prison furniture shop and had himself delivered to freedom by truck.<br /><br />They're among more than 220 state prison escapees nationwide who are listed as on the loose, The Associated Press found in a coast-to-coast survey.<br /><br />Most broke out decades ago, meaning the chances of finding them have dwindled dramatically — that is, if they're even alive.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2015/06/17/do-they-teach-law-at-harvard-anymore/">J. Christian Adams wonders</a> if Harvard Law School even teaches law anymore. There are some bizarre classes that they have on their curriculum there.<br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=1599474891&asins=1599474891&linkId=WAM2XOXWULPOMIGR&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacares-record-just-got-worse/article/2566493">Obamacare results are getting worse.</a><blockquote>In late 2013, when healthcare.gov was a useless, glitchy mess for members of the public, government officials had another, less-noticed problem on their hands.<br /><br />Everyone knew — many from experience and many from the news coverage — that the website the government had built to connect Americans with subsidized insurance policies did not work very well on the front end for months after its launch. The dirty secret, though, was that the back-end of the site had not even been built — the part that was supposed to make sure subsidies were set properly and insurers received payments on behalf of each customer.<br /><br />Congress noticed this even then, and asked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about it in a December 2013 hearing. She reassured members that it would be up and running eventually, and added, "There's a manual workaround for virtually everything that isn't fully automated yet."<br /><br />Only now it is becoming clear how inadequate the agency's preparations had been. On Monday, with little fanfare, the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services released a damning report on waste in this part of the Obamacare program. The watchdog office found that between January-April 2014, $2.8 billion went out the door without anyone checking amounts, whether the money was going to the right insurer to pay for the correct person or whether the beneficiary was eligible.<br /><br />As bad as that sounds, it's actually much worse when you consider how large a share that represents of the program's overall spending during the same period. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expected the Obamacare program to spend just $17 billion on exchange subsidies and "related spending" in all of fiscal 2014 (October 2013-September 2014). Based on some crude back-of-the-envelope math, that means the $2.8 billion dumped out recklessly in those four months might have actually been more than a third of what Obamacare spent during that same period.</blockquote><br />It is now ten years since the infamous Supreme Court decision <i>Kelo v. City of New London</i> in which the Court held that a local government could use eminent domain to take private property from private owner to give to another private entity as long as there is some pretense of the taking being for "economic development. Ilya Somin reminds us that Susette Kelo's home was taken in order for Pfizer to build a plant in New London, but that plant was never built and the land now is a trash dump.Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3519180.post-54052319957031848342015-06-20T17:34:00.000-04:002015-06-20T17:43:26.788-04:00Defending Alexander HamiltonThe Treasury Secretary's ham-handed decision to put a woman on the $10 bill <strike>in place of </strike>alongside of Alexander Hamilton has irritated just about everyone. No one approves and just about everyone thinks that it would be much better to replace Andrew Jackson instead of Alexander Hamilton. No one really defends Jackson.<br /><br />The reason <a href="https://thenew10.treasury.gov/faqs">the Treasury gives for choosing </a>Hamilton is because the $10 was set to be redesigned anyway and is the next bill in line for the redesign <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2566506">so it takes priority.</a><blockquote>"We have to do them sequentially, and it has to be based on security first," Lew said. The bills will include new anti-counterfeiting properties, as well as new tactile features to aid the blind.<br /><br />Lew emphasized that changing currency is a lengthy process.<br /><br />"If you think of it as an R&D project, you'd be closer to right than just thinking of it as just like running a printing press," Lew said, noting that there are complicated design and production steps in creating the new bill.<br /><br />"It doesn't sound like you need to move now to have a bill in five years," he later added, "but my people are rushing me to decisions because they need the time."<br /><br />Jackson was singled out for replacement in part because of his mixed legacy. Jackson's presence on the note has received scrutiny for his mistreatment of Native Americans and ownership of slaves.<br /><br />Nevertheless, it's the $10 being redesigned to feature a woman, merely because it was next in line for an overhaul.</blockquote>Lew also likes the symbolism that the $10 bill is scheduled for its redesign in 2020 which would be the 100-year anniversary of the 19th Amendment. So its just poor timing that has doomed Hamilton.<br /><br />As <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/06/18/alexander_hamilton_nostalgia_is_actually_a_thing_left_and_right_even_in_weird_agreement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow">Scott Timberg notes</a>, people from both the left and right are rushing to laud Alexander Hamilton. Those on the left have discovered his abolitionist background. Of the Founding Fathers, he and John Adams, along with Benjamin Franklin, were the ones most outspoken against slavery. And Andrew Jackson was not only a major slaveowner, he was also the president who implemented the Indian Removal Act and who rose to prominence fighting Native Americans. Huffington Post complains that "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/andrew-jackson-20-bill_n_7608904.html">Anti-Slavery Hamilton Gets Pushed Off The $10 Bill, While Genocidal Slavery jackson Stays On The $20."</a><blockquote>The tragedy, though, is which bill. Instead of pushing aside pro-slavery, genocidal President Andrew Jackson, the Treasury Department has decided to sideline the first treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, to make way for a yet-to-be named woman.<br /><br />Hamilton, one of America's founding fathers, was a strong opponent of slavery, and was an early member of the New York Manumission Society, an abolitionist group that organized boycotts against merchants connected to the slave trade and lobbied for legislation abolishing the institution.<br /><br />Andrew Jackson, meanwhile, a War of 1812 hero, was a slave owner. Even more perniciously, Jackson carried out an "Indian removal" policy as president. Much of his popularity before the presidency came from his many wars against Native Americans -- some of them, including an invasion of Florida, done illegally.<br /><br />While it can be tempting to look back on the American Indian genocides as inevitable, decades of policy in the United States and the preceding British colonies had sought coexistence and reconciliation with various native peoples. Jackson's policies reversed these efforts, bringing with it the Cherokee Trail of Tears and other horrors in which men, women and children were slaughtered to allow for a land-grab by white, male landowners.<br /><br />Jackson's Indian Removal Act was no historical inevitability. It passed the House by just six votes, after a heated national debate. Even after the Supreme Court ruled his policy illegal, Jackson ignored the order, carrying out his mission with lawless brutality.</blockquote>Even the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-the-women-of-women-on-20s-think-of-women-on-tens">women who have led the effort</a> to get a woman on the currency are not happy with Jack Lew's decision. Lew has said that, in some yet-to-be-defined way, the woman who is chosen will share the $10 bill with Hamilton.<blockquote>On the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/WomenOn20s">Facebook </a>page for the Women on 20s campaign, some of the most-liked comments criticized the Treasury Department’s decision. “Women ask to be on the $20, so we get offered the $10,” one person wrote. “Never, never give a woman what she asks for.” Another commented, “Placing a woman on a bill with Alexander Hamilton makes the same sexist statement that our currency has made all along—that a woman cannot be independent or important without a man.” And, “A man gets ‘final say’ over which woman. This feels like a slap in the face.”</blockquote>As <a href="https://www.facebook.com/WomenOn20s/posts/1599615263643901?comment_id=1599618550310239&offset=0&total_comments=58&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D">Ashley Vandelaare writes on Facebook, </a><blockquote>It bothers me that they think putting a women along side Hamilton is gonna make us happy. This is not at all what i wanted i want to see a women on a $20 bill. And for the Secretary of treasure to be like oh this is my idea. So wrong. I will remember this campaign and the struggle to be heard, and i hope the history books will too. I hope one day in my time i see a women, just a women on a bill without needing a man alongside her to make it ok. To make it sound as if we are equal to them in all ways of life.</blockquote>The complaints echo complaints of African Americans that movies about singular moments in African American History such as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Glory</a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095647/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Mississippi Burning</a> seem to have to feature a white actor in the starring role rather than just black stars.<br /><br />Meanwhile, two biographers of Hamilton have weighed in. I've read both their biographies because I've long been a huge Hamilton fan and recommend both of them.<br /><br />Ron Chernow, author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143034758?creativeASIN=0143034758&linkCode=w00&linkId=QQ6Q45WEOL4X56C2&ref_=as_sl_pc_tf_til&tag=mrsnewspagofh-20">a magisterial biography of Hamilton,</a> writes in <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/save-alexander-hamilton-119176.html#.VYXWQ_lViko">defense of Hamilton in Politico.</a><blockquote>Hamilton was undeniably the most influential person in our history who never attained the presidency. That he started out as an illegitimate, effectively orphaned, and penniless immigrant from the Caribbean, who didn’t know a soul when he arrived in North America at the start of the American Revolution, makes his story worth celebrating in a nation of immigrants. His contributions to forging our country were gigantic and pervasive, starting with his starring role in the Revolutionary War, when he served as aide-de-camp and chief of staff to George Washington, and as a battlefield hero at Yorktown.<br /><br />After the war, he personally issued the appeal for a Constitutional Convention, attended it, and was the sole New York delegate to sign the resulting document. To help ratify the new constitution, he spearheaded the writing of The Federalist Papers, publishing fifty-one of those eighty-five luminous essays. They remain the classic gloss on our Constitution and the documents most frequently cited by the Supreme Court. At the New York State Ratifying Convention, Hamilton spoke twenty-six times during a grueling six-week marathon and got the constitution ratified by a narrow margin in a key state</blockquote>And that doesn't even get to how Hamilton created the foundation of our financial survival.<blockquote>In 1789, George Washington tapped the thirty-four-year-old Hamilton as the first Treasury secretary. With its tax collectors and customs inspectors, Hamilton’s Treasury Department eclipsed in size the rest of the federal government combined, making him something akin to a prime minister. Drawing on a blank slate, Hamilton arose as the visionary architect of the executive branch, forming from scratch the first fiscal, monetary, tax, and accounting systems. In quick succession, he assembled the Coast Guard, the customs service, and the Bank of the United States—the first central bank and the forerunner of the Federal Reserve System. Most significantly, he took a country bankrupted by revolutionary war debt and restored American credit. All the while, he articulated an expansive vision of the Constitution, converting it into an elastic document that could grow with a dynamic young country.<br /><br /><br />One reason Hamilton was vilified by his enemies is that they feared him as an agent of modernity at a time when his Jeffersonian opponents espoused an American future that stressed traditional agriculture and small towns. In a stupendous leap, Hamilton argued for a thriving nation populated by cities, banks, corporations, and stock exchanges as well as traditional agriculture. In his famous Report on Manufactures, he enumerated how government could foster manufacturing and provide employment for immigrants. He shaped, in a virtuoso performance, America’s financial infrastructure in its entirety. On the Wall Street of the early 1790s, only five securities were traded: three issues of Treasury securities, the stock of the Bank of the United States, and the stock of the private Bank of New York—all created by Alexander Hamilton.<br /><br />Especially pertinent in the controversy over the ten-dollar bill is that Hamilton was the figure in our history most identified with paper money. In 1791, he published his Report on the Mint, acting to establish the rudiments of our currency. He endorsed the dollar as our basic currency unit with smaller coins used on a decimal basis and first proposed putting presidential faces on coins. The banknotes of Hamilton’s Bank of the United States counted as the first paper money issued by the new government. Arguably no one ever put a greater stamp on the currency we all use today, and which has become the world’s premier currency as well.</blockquote><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0143034758&asins=0143034758&linkId=QQ6Q45WEOL4X56C2&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe>Richard Brookhiser is a master of the short biography that can crystallize what is fascinating and important to know about a famous Founding Father in fewer than 250 pages. I have read most of his biographies and found them all worthwhile. His short biography of Hamilton, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684863316?creativeASIN=0684863316&linkCode=w00&linkId=MJKRMSGOXKP3R6FD&ref_=as_sl_pc_tf_til&tag=mrsnewspagofh-20">Alexander Hamilton, American,</a> was the first one that I read and I've even had my AP US History students read it and they all became big Hamilton fans. Brookhiser writes in the WSJ complaining about the decision of the Treasury Secretary, <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=First+Aaron+Burr%2C+Now+Jack+Lew">"First Aaron Burr, Now Jack Lew."</a><blockquote>Hamilton, who died in 1804 before he was 50, packed a lot into a relatively short life. He was a journalist all his mature life, beginning with youthful pieces written in his native Caribbean, continuing until he founded the New-York Evening Post (still publishing, minus the hyphen and the Evening) three years before he died. His greatest journalistic project was a series of 85 opinion pieces, written in 1787-88, under the pseudonym Publius to support the ratification of the Constitution. Hamilton conceived the series, tapped John Jay and James Madison as collaborators, and wrote three-fifths of the essays himself. College students and justices of the Supreme Court still read and cite the Federalist Papers.<br /><br />As a practicing lawyer he anticipated the principle of judicial review, both in his Federalist essays and in arguments in court. In 1785 one of his clients, James Waddington, was accused of violating a New York law that criminalized obeying the British when they occupied New York City during the Revolution. Hamilton argued that the law violated the terms of the Treaty of Paris, which Congress had ratified; therefore the court was obliged to overrule it (he won a split decision on that case). Chief Justice John Marshall, who echoed Hamilton’s language in some of his decisions, said that, beside Hamilton, he felt like a candle by the sun at noon.<br /><br />George Washington met Hamilton early in the Revolution, promoting him from an artillery captain to a colonel on his staff, drafting orders and correspondence. When Washington was president, he turned to his ex-aide for advice on a range of issues, from etiquette (hold a reception every week, and a few dinners every year; be sure to invite everyone in Congress) to foreign policy (interest is the governing principle with nations: just because France had helped us during the Revolution didn’t mean she always would). When Washington decided to go home after two terms, Hamilton ghosted his farewell address.<br /><br />One of Hamilton’s achievements should win him honor in multicultural America. In 1785 he helped found the New York Manumission Society, to work for black liberty in a Northern slave state. Emancipation was not accomplished until 1827, long after Hamilton died. But his efforts spurred a persistent rumor in New York’s black community that he had black blood. He didn’t; he only had principles.<br /><br />But Hamilton’s greatest achievement was what he did as the nation’s first Treasury secretary from 1789-94. He saved the new country from its first debt crisis, laid the foundations of its future prosperity—and earned the hostility of several of his great peers, hostility that dogs him to this day.</blockquote>At least, this stupid decision by Jack Lew has created a teachable moment for people to learn about the many and varied contributions of Alexander Hamilton to our country's founding.<br /><br /><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mrsnewspagofh-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0684863316&asins=0684863316&linkId=MJKRMSGOXKP3R6FD&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"><br /></iframe><br />And another benefit is that the arguments why Jackson should be the one to lose his position on the currency have led people to learn more about his presidency. In addition to his racist past, he was also <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/why-the-u-s-government-needs-to-remove-andrew-jackson-from-the-20-bill/?postshare=6181434636933620">a terrible steward of the American economy,</a> all the more reason why he shouldn't be honored by appearing on the $20.<blockquote>Jackson didn’t even like paper money and he pursued wrong-headed and disastrous economic policies. Yet the Tennessee frontiersman, land speculator, lawyer, slave-owner, war hero and seventh president – will continue to gaze out from the $20 bill.<br /><br />What did Jackson do wrong when it came to the economy? Lots. Among other things, Jackson dismantled the second Bank of the United States (which he called a “monster institution”) and -- ironically given his spot on the $20 bill – restricted the use of paper money. This lay down the conditions for the Panic of 1837, one of the most severe depressions in U.S. history.<br /><br />A self-made man, Jackson long harbored a deep mistrust of banks. At the time, there was no Federal Reserve, nor federal bank notes like those we have today. Most Americans at the time paid for goods and services with gold or silver coins or paper notes issued by private firms or state-chartered banks. The value of those paper notes fluctuated wildly.<br /><br />The Bank of the United States at the time imposed an element of stability. The authoritative history textbook “The Great Republic” says that “the BUS performed many of the functions of a truly national bank,” even though it was largely privately owned. It issued its own notes, but in limited amounts so that their value remained stable. Thus its notes, unlike those issued by hundreds of state-chartered banks, were accepted by the federal government as legal payment for any money owed.<br /><br />The BUS also served as a regulatory agency, “refusing to accept notes [from smaller banks] that were not backed by sufficient reserves of specie,” the book says.<br /><br />Finally, the bank’s widely accepted and circulated notes eased the challenge of conducting business over long distances.<br /><br />But when he ran for president in 1832, Jackson waged war on the private Bank of the United States, calling it monopoly and saying it made “the rich richer and the potent more powerful.” It was a message that appealed to widely different interest groups – such as indebted farmers and land speculators pushing the young country westward and eastern banks jealous of the power of the Bank of the United States.<br /><br />Once elected, Jackson took the federal government’s surplus revenues (yes, the federal government was actually running a surplus!) away from the national bank. Instead he spread them around several dozen state-chartered banks, dubbed “pet” banks, which issued new paper notes and loans, feeding a speculative boom and inflation.<br /><br />But later in his presidency, Jackson slammed on the brakes by insisting on the use of hard money, or coins, rather than paper notes. In 1836, he issued a Specie Circular, requiring payment in coins by purchasers of public lands, sharply curtailing inflation. In 1836, when the bank’s charter needed to be renewed, Jackson also vetoed the bill approved by Congress, saying he was taking a stand “against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many.” The head of the bank called Jackson’s veto message “a manifesto of anarchy.”<br /><br />Jackson’s new contractionary policies coincided with a drop in investment and a sale of American securities by hard-pressed British firms.<br /><br />The result? Catastrophe. It would be known as the Panic of 1837 by which time Martin van Buren had become president, but investment and employment began to plunge in 1836. A mob of nearly a thousand people sacked warehouses in New York City. Businessmen in Boston protested against requirements to make payments in hard currency. And banks started refusing to redeem paper notes for hard currency.<br /><br />The downturn lasted about four years, throwing people out of work, ruining many farmers, and forcing the closure of many banks.</blockquote>So we're going to replace the first Treasury Secretary who did so much for our nation's financial survival and allow the guy who almost single-handedly plunged the country into a deep depression. It makes no sense and no weaseling about how it's the timing alone that mandates that such a great American should be replaced by a woman. None of the proposed women, Harriet Tubman, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ida Tarbell, or Eleanor Roosevelt did a fraction for the country that Hamilton did. All they have going for them is their chromosomal make-up. Notice that the argument is that we have to replace Hamilton with a woman to be named later, not that any one of these women are so important that she deserves to be on the currency. <br /><br /><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript">amzn_assoc_ad_type = "responsive_search_widget"; amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mrsnewspagofh-20"; amzn_assoc_link_id = "R5MLR74IUCULOTER"; amzn_assoc_marketplace = "amazon"; amzn_assoc_region = "US"; amzn_assoc_placement = ""; amzn_assoc_search_type = "search_widget"; amzn_assoc_width = 300; amzn_assoc_height = 250; amzn_assoc_default_search_category = ""; amzn_assoc_default_search_key = ""; amzn_assoc_theme = "dark"; amzn_assoc_bg_color = "000000"; </script><br /><script src="//z-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&Operation=GetScript&ID=OneJS&WS=1&MarketPlace=US"></script><br /><br /><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/alexander-hamilton-poor-bastard_974485.htmlhttp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/alexander-hamilton-poor-bastard_974485.html">Noemie Emery note</a>s how ridiculous this development has made the women look who have been pushing for such a change.<blockquote>Everything is wrong with this ill-advised project, among them the fact that Hamilton eclipses in impact all but a very small handful of presidents, much less the well-meaning but much more obscure list of social workers etc. the feminists want to see in his stead. Why can’t they see that this makes them ludicrous? Why can’t they go for the two-dollar bill---Jefferson still has the nickel---or one of the less-used denominations, filled by less worthy men? Why should women get on a bill before African Americans do, who have suffered much more (sorry, ladies), and have people, like Frederick Douglass, with much greater claims upon consequence? And why not wait for a woman to come along who really deserves it? The bullpens are filling up with some serious talents, and it won’t be long now. </blockquote><br />There are several possible solutions. The best would be to wait until the redesign of the $20 and replace the $20. Or have two $10 bills alternating Hamilton and the unnamed woman. Or put the woman on the $10 and put Hamilton on the $20. But preserve Hamilton's presence somewhere on the currency.Betsy Newmarknoreply@blogger.com5